Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 26th Jan 2006 02:21 UTC, submitted by Moparx
Permalink for comment 89695
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-03
"but most people get them from the GNU/Linux distribution and they all release there kernel version under GPL v.2+ and probably will move to GPL v3+ , because there lawyer teams will advise them to do so."
You do realise that that is completely wrong, don't you?
If a piece of code is explicitly under the GPLv2, it _cannot_ be relicensed under the GPLv3. The Linux kernel has code under multiple licenses, some of it is under a GPLv2-or-later license, some is under a GPLv2-only license and other parts are dual licensed (BSD/GPLv2+, ...). These licenses are all compatible, but that means that the kernel license as a whole cannot be changed without permission from everybody that has ever contributed to the parts that would require changing.
Besides... no distribution changes the licensing terms of any of its components. That notion is insane and completely wrong. Where did you get that from...?