> As we can choose which version of the GPL we want to apply (because its > under "GPL") we choose the one thats compatible with the rest of the > kernel - GPL2. We could chose to use it under different terms (eg, > GPL3), but then we wouldnt be able to distribute it.
I am trying to follow you here. If we were not able to distribute the file in any way--even completely apart from the kernel--then I assume that this is because our *only* way of getting the file is via the kernel distribution, and thus we are bound by the license *in effect* in this act of distribution. Distributing under any other versions would require permission from the copyright holder. I think nothing less than written permission would be safe. It's convoluted, since the original language already gives you permission in principle, but, again, it all comes down to the distribution "bottleneck." With these kinds of hassles it's no wonder that the FSF requires copyright assignment in many GNU projects such as Emacs. _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
