On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:14, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
quoted text
> It seems so.
>
> > But it has this upgrade option, and one possible interpretation of
>
>       ^^
>
> > Linus' comment is "no, it doesn't have this update option".
>
> It? What "it"?
> I don't get it. If you say the licence is v2 only, then how can it have
> options?

By section 9. The license is v2, and basically allows to update the=20
license - and it makes this a choice of the user (who also has rights to=20
change stuff and redistribute it).

quoted text
> > If I use GPL as license, I'm under "GPL regime", i.e. the terms of the
> > GPL apply.
>
> First, the local and international laws apply. It's not like selling your
> soul to the devil.

Contract law means that first and foremost the contract itself defines the=
=20
rules, and only if it is not or contradicts the law, the law jumps in. The=
=20
GPL is not really a contract, it's a license, but the law is not much=20
different here, especially once you accept the GPL. If you put your code=20
under GPL, the text in the GPL is the deal. The law is only the framework=20
under which the deal works.

If you accept the M$ EULA, international law still applies, yet you are=20
selling your soul to the devil (because the EULA sais so).

quoted text
> > Now, I may rewrite those few "GPLv2 only" files, and
> > then I have a GPLv2-or later compatible linux-some.version-bp kernel.
>
> Sure, you can rewrite all non "GPLv2 or later" code and have v3 Linux.
> The problem is you think only "few" files are v2.

Because only few files say so, and they must say what they mean, because GP=
L=20
is rather clear that if you put a file which doesn't say which version=20
applies under GPL, it's "any GPL". Why is it so difficult to grok section 9=
=20
of the current GPLv2, which people claim is well understood?

A number of kernel hacker deliberately want their work under GPLv2 only=20
(like Al Viro), and they are fully entitled to do that - but they must=20
announce it in a propper place (not lkml or lwn.org), and a comment in=20
COPYING signed by Linus Torvalds doesn't seem to be propper to me,=20
especially when the GPLv2 gives a procedure how to do it (look for the=20
appendix: "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs").

There are good reasons to follow the advice there, and those who did follow=
=20
the advice in the Linux kernel in the vast majority said "GPLv2 or later".=
=20
Verbatim copy without understanding? Or is it rather that the other people=
=20
who didn't follow the advice didn't read the GPL, and therefore understand=
=20
it even less ;-)?

=2D-=20
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/