[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

    On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
    > So now the copy of the GPL v2 isn't good enough for the GPLv1.1 code?
    > Maybe that code said 'or later' in the license and hence someone added
    > it to a GPL v2 project since that sounds perfectly OK.

    Where did that GPLv1.1 nonsense come from?

    There is no GPLv1.1 code in the tree. By the time I selected the GPL for
    the kernel license, the GPLv1.1 had long since been discontinued. The
    kernel was *never* GPLv1.1-only compatible. That's just total nonsense.

    There was indeed a kernel license before the GPLv2, but it wasn't the GPL
    at all, it was my own made-up thing. Appended here, for those who are too
    lazy to actually look up and check the original Linux-0.01 announcement.


    This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be
    redistributed provided you do the following:

    - Full source must be available (and free), if not with the
    distribution then at least on asking for it.

    - Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute
    only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't
    (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied
    without bothering with copyrights.

    - You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling"
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-14 20:57    [W:0.020 / U:1.740 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site