From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,71b4c0131a8a22a4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feeder2.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ? References: <1182160706.208857@xnews001> <1182493841.177772.314860@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:16:17 +0200 Message-ID: <877ipws0hq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MFvtHVkaOwH1VSFKxaCE4ZsMurg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Tele2 X-Trace: DXC=6]hk^g]LT[XRO@?84e@S]P6`Y6aWje^YZoO8MMJUMn?Vm@[o=d]MiO]_dVSQVSQWJ\d@_1f>mG_UZ Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16296 Date: 2007-06-22T13:16:17+02:00 List-Id: Harald Korneliussen writes: > anon wrote: >> Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to >> GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could >> go back and write a new Linux license. >> >> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! ! > > Sorry, can't let blatant misinformation like that stand. It concerns > Ada insofar GNAT & GPL is so widespread and important. > > By now, Linus alone does not hold copyright to the entire kernel. I > believe some contributors assign their rights to him, but some keep > it, and many assign it to the Free Software Foundation instead (there > are many kernel contributors to the "left" of Linus on free software > issues). The FSF would never agree to a license change, except to > GPL3. GPL2 does not force you to upgrade to GPL3 but it permits it > ("at your option, any later version"). This means anyone is free to > ship the entire kernel under GPL3, although you could still get it > under the old licence from Linus and others. Linux is licensed under GPL v2 only, NOT "any later version". That's actually the crux of why a move to GPLv3 would require agreement from all copyright holders. > However, if a party redistributes or modifies a GPL3-version of the > source, rather than a GPL2-version, perhaps by accident, they will be > in trouble, if you think that limited opportunity to sue your users > for software patent infringement is trouble. They will be in trouble for violating copyright law, too. -- Ludovic Brenta.