Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 May 2013 11:57:15 +0100 | Subject | Re: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels | From | "luke.leighton" <> |
| |
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Ian Stirling <gplvio@mauve.plus.com> wrote: > On 18.05.2013 19:27, luke.leighton wrote: > >> question: what is the procedure for having that licensing explicitly >> added to the linux kernel sources? > > > Fork the kernel, and put it up on a repo somewhere that says you're trying > to get it all as > GPL3.
pay me $100k per year to set up a foundation which maintains that code and i will do so.
not going to happen, is it ian? i was initially quite pissed at the rest of what you wrote, especially at its sarcasm. but then it occurred to me that it is highly indicative of a feeling of dis-empowerment that everyone feels in the linux kernel community.
you felt - ian - that what i want to do cannot be done by *anyone* - presumably because Linus Has Spoken. or perhaps because the scale of the task is beyond you.
but i'm not interested in any of that. i've made a decision. and my question was very very specific.
i wish to know the procedure by which my formally and publicly announced release of all linux kernel contributions under the dual licenses of GPLv2 and GPLv3+ may be entered - formally - upstream and into the linux kernel sources being maintained on git.kernel.org
i don't give a fuck about what anybody else may choose; i do not give a fuck about the timescales. i want *MY* choice to be respected: *MY* code contributions under the GPLv2 and GPLv3+ and have that properly recorded.
so. could someone please inform me what the procedure is: is it as simple as submitting a patch?
l.
| |