Re: Linux 0.97 is under GPL, isn't it?
on Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:23:19PM +0100, Sven Dehmlow privat ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi, Linux 1.0 is under GPL, of course. But is Linux 0.1 is under Linus' "own" license. Is Linux 0.97 under GPL? You can find historic versions of the Linux_ kernel at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/ The archive may be incomplete -- I see an 0.99.x and 0.96[abc]. No 0.97. The 0.96 tarball contains no readily apparent COPYING file or licensing notice, other than Linus's copyright. It's possible (though I don't know for certain) that the code has be retroactively included in the GPL relicensing. Why specifically 0.97? -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: Linux 0.97 is under GPL, isn't it?
Hi, I develop a kernel basing on Linux 0.97, so I need to know which license it has. Bye Sven
Re: Linux 0.97 is under GPL, isn't it?
on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 06:39:00PM +0100, Sven Dehmlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi, I develop a kernel basing on Linux 0.97, so I need to know which license it has. Ask Linus. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: Linux 0.97 is under GPL, isn't it?
Well, to ask Linus is a good idea, but it only makes sense if Linus answers and I'm not sure about that... Sven
Re: Linux 0.97 is under GPL, isn't it?
on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:38:20PM +0100, Sven Dehmlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Well, to ask Linus is a good idea, but it only makes sense if Linus answers and I'm not sure about that... You're not going to find that out writing here. If Linus doesn't respond, I'd go to Linux International and/or its members. At some point, you'll find someone with a sufficiently empty mailbox that they'll see your question and either respond or escalate it for you. Alan Cox is another reasonable bet, Don Becker or Ted T'so as well, and likely to be less swamped than Linus. My experience in general has been that members of the free software community are extremely approachable and responsive by email, particularly for short questions. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: Linux 0.97 is under GPL, isn't it?
begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation: You can find historic versions of the Linux_ kernel at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/ The archive may be incomplete -- I see an 0.99.x and 0.96[abc]. No 0.97. It's in http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/old/ . The .bz2 file is complete and (like 0.96) includes no licence statement, only sundry copyright notices. I find it difficult to believe that anyone sincerely wishes to base current work on that antique code. If it were September, I'd suspect this was yet another bored freshman trying to troll a mailing list. But, no licence means unlicenced: If anyone truly wishes some clear and unambiguous permission to use that code, it will, as you say, be necessary to contact the copyright holder(s). -- Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm Rick Moen for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the rest of his life." -- John A. Hrastar
