Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ?

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

> Harald Korneliussen <vintermann@gmail.com> 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.


AFAIK that 'NOT "any later version"' applies only to some of the
files. The situation is aggrevated by the incompatibility of GPL3 with
GPL2 -- it will prevent parts of the kernel going to GPL3 while the
other parts retain GPL2.

Regards -- Markus