>> "version 2 or higher"That's true. But sec. 9 of the GPLv2 says: If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. So, by making the COPYING contain the v2 text, is the author specifying a particular version? If yes, then the sec. 9 provision would be meaningless, since there would be no way to not specify a version number. My understanding is that courts would presume that a license term has a meaning, if it has a plausible reading. And there such a reading: that to specify a version, there needs to be (e.g. in the source files) a statement like, "This file [or work] is licensed under the GNU GPLv2." Corrections, flames, etc. are welcome. -Sanjoy -
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Eric Sandeen | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Filippos Papadopoulos | Re: INITIO scsi driver fails to work properly |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Protect gen estimators under est_lock. |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
