Posted on 01/27/2006 6:48:14 AM PST by N3WBI3
Linus Torvalds has weighed in on the debate over the draft of version 3 of the GPL in a post on the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) this afternoon. Torvalds says that the Linux kernel "in general" has always been covered under version 2 of the GPL, and that that isn't going to change.
Torvalds made the statement on the LKML to clarify the version of the GPL covering the Linux kernel. While many GPLed projects include the clause, "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version," which would allow anyone to license code under the GPLv3 when it is finalized, the kernel does not. Torvalds wrote:
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid.
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if > someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the > kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
They should just delete all your worthless threads completely.
Given the number of post pulled and days suspended on your side are exponentially higher than mine I think if anyone needs to be put away all together its you.
You know, the desperate often get angry as well as stupid. Little surprise he's getting comments pulled. He argues largely from emotion and a holier-than-thou, hypocritical attitude.
Poor guy. Probably doesn't have any friends at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.