On Jun 10 2007 10:17, Simon Arlott wrote: >On 10/06/07 09:37, Tarkan Erimer wrote: >> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux >> Kernel is using which version of GPL : >> >> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html >> >> You've got to take MODULE_LICENSE() into account. There is >> >> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); >> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); >> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights"); >> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL"); >> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL"); >> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MPL/GPL"); > >Surely that doesn't work since the entire Linux kernel is (and can only be) >released as GPLv2? Wouldn't anyone making changes to those files need to >obtain a copy under the other licence and explicitly release it under both >licenses in order to maintain that?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp has the answer. Quoting Linus: "If you want to license a program under any later version of the GPL, you have to state so explicitly. Linux never did." Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files are GPL2 only. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/