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 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ? References: <1182160706.208857@xnews001> <1182493841.177772.314860@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:36:08 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:DCImJd2WQNtgYgxVfcj7q/HXuhU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.230.101 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1182507974 88.72.230.101 (22 Jun 2007 12:26:14 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16305 Date: 2007-06-22T12:36:08+02:00 List-Id: > 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