Jan Braunisch wrote:
indeed.... and all those pro GPL3 developers can let you take their patches. The trouble is patches are often re-worked during application; whose patches are they then? It was said that the COPYING file signifies the authors intentions. I think we need to ask if many of the kernel developers ever had any intention relating to gpl2/gpl3 at all.I also would also like to poit out that the GPL under section 0 says: This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. Such a notice is not present for most of the files in the kernel sorce. What if Torvalds would add want to relicense Linux under the GPL v3, could he change the COPYING file without the permission of all the people that have added code to the kernel without specifying a license? I've contributed snippets to the kernel under another name and I never had any particular intention. (Someone else signed them off, it was post-SCO) Sam |
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
