> Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but if a kernel contributor submitted a > patch/driver or whatever that said "Under GPL" and is in turn > distributed in the kernel.org source tree, wouldn't the distribution > be choosing GPLv2 like the rest of the kernel? It would still be > meeting the author's terms (GPL), the terms of the GPL (you may choose > any version) with the additional clarification made by being > distributed in a v2+v2-compatible work? I mean, they wouldn't have > distributed it under v3 since it's not compatible with the rest of the > codebase. Additionally, since GNU GPLv2 was written in June 1991, and > Linux licensed under "the GPL" in December of 1991 we can assume it > was never GPLv1. >
While I am finding these comments informative, for our present purposes, if the top of the file is, in effect, /* Under GPL */ then I would just copy and paste it like any other notice, since all we have to do is show that the file is free and not give any further interpretation. _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
