Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:20:20 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: GPLv3 Position Statement |
| |
On Thu, 28 September 2006 08:04:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > No. I _really_ want to clarify this, because so many people get it wrong. > Really. > > The "GPLv2 only" wording is really just a clarification. You don't need it > for the project to be "GPLv2 only". > > If a project says: "This code is licensed under this copyright license" > and then goes on to quote the GPLv2, then IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE > GPLv3! > > Or if you just say "I license my code under the GPLv2", IT IS NOT > COMPATIBLE WITH THE GPLv3.
And this is an area where I slightly disagree with you. While I would hope that you were right, I can easily imagine a judge ruling that "v2 or later" in the preamble means that the project just signed a blank license of the FSF's discretion.
I can just as easily imagine a judge ruling that "simply copying the GPL license verbatim and not removing the 'or later'" clause is does not sufficiently demonstrate the authors intent to dual-license the code.
And the likelihood of either ruling will depend on many things, but will never reach 0 or 1. It is a gray area where your legal advice is just as bad as mine and your "GPLv2 only" clarification may in fact be a fork I was talking about. We just don't know until this has been tested in court, which hopefully never happens.
Jörn
-- Joern's library part 11: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |