Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ?

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

> 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.

Good to see that I'm not the only one disturbed by this.

> 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.

I heard that some parts of the Kernel have a GPL (2.0?) w/o the "or
any later version" clause. Those would have to be replaced, at
least. I didn't do extensive research on this, though: The situation
might already have changed in the last years.

> 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.

"Trouble" only ensues from redistribution to a third party. Internal
use of GPL code is AFAIK completely unrestricted. There is no need for
redistribution.

Regards -- Markus