David Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 01:59:16PM -0700, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Ummmm, given that both the BSD and X11 licenses were very much de rigeur
in academia at the time, Linus actively chose the GPL.
In fact, Linus originally wanted *no commercial distribution at all*.
However, he *changed* the license to the GPL so that he could take
advantage of the GNU components.
This makes no sense. There is no incompatility of licenses between the
kernel and userspace. There are no GNU components in the kernel.
Don't ask me. It's historic record. Go ask Linus.
The GPL v2 is NOT modified. The kernel is covered by the GPL v2
period. Although some projects use the phrase "GPL v2 or later" it is
not inconsistent to choose only a single version.
It is a very specific snapshot of the GPLv2. Fortunately, the FSF never
updated the GPLv2 or this would have caused issues. They have chosen to
cross the issue with GPLv3.
Um, that would be what the v2 part o the GPLv2 is, it's a version number.
Changing it would require a different version number.
And what would you call a GPLv2 that required "or any later version"?
Is it still a GPLv2? What would the law say?
Words and law are not computers. They rarely have clear, obviously
correct answers.
As I said, I don't particularly care, nor am I interested in arguing
hypotheticals. The FSF decided to cross the bridge with significant
modifications in the GPLv3.
-a
--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
