Re: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?

Jan Engelhardt
2006-09-24T07:56:36Z

>> Side note: in "git", we kind of discussed this. And because the project
>> was started when the whole GPL version discussion was already in bloom,
>> the git project has a note at top of the COPYING file that says:
>>
>> Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
>> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
>> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>>
>> HOWEVER, in order to allow a migration to GPLv3 if that seems like
>> a good idea, I also ask that people involved with the project make
>> their preferences known. In particular, if you trust me to make that
>> decision, you might note so in your copyright message, ie something
>> like
>>
>> This file is licensed under the GPL v2, or a later version
>> at the discretion of Linus.
>>
>
> Actually, this didn't catch on very well anyway, I guess because most
>people just know it's GPLv2 and don't even bother to peek at COPYING, we
>are a bit sloppy about copyright notices and most of them don't mention
>licence at all (if there are any in the file at all), and adding
>explicit copyright notices to mails isn't too popular either.

Would every file that does not contain an explicit license (this
excludes MODULE_LICENSE) falls under COPYING?

> $ git grep 'discretion'
> COPYING: at the discretion of Linus.
> git-annotate.perl:# at the discretion of Linus Torvalds.
> git-relink.perl:# Later versions of the GPL at the discretion of Linus Torvalds
> git-request-pull.sh:# at the discretion of Linus Torvalds.
>
>and I've found no patches with such special assignment.

Jan Engelhardt
--