From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422787AbWA1Bxk (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:53:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422788AbWA1Bxk (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:53:40 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:42148 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422787AbWA1Bxj (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:53:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:53:10 -0500 (EST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Simon Oosthoek cc: Al Viro , "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" , Kyle Moffett , Marc Perkel , "Jeff V. Merkey" , Patrick McLean , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders In-Reply-To: <43DA2795.707@ti-wmc.nl> Message-ID: References: <43D13B2A.6020504@cs.ubishops.ca> <43D7C780.6080000@perkel.com> <43D7B20D.7040203@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7B5C4.5040601@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7D05D.7030101@perkel.com> <43D9F9F9.5060501@ti-wmc.nl> <20060127133939.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> <43DA2795.707@ti-wmc.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Simon Oosthoek wrote: > > really? if it was dual licensed (that's what I meant, perhaps the "or" should > be an "and"? ;-), v2 in the kernel and v3(or any later version, etc.), if the > code is used outside of the kernel, it would "fall back to" v3+ as soon as > it's taken out of the kernel and used in something else. You very much _can_ dual-license it, and say "for the kernel, we license it under GPLv2". But if you do that, then the GPLv2 licensing in the kernel means that somebody else can take it from the kernel, and ti can still be under the GPLv2 too (_and_ the GPLv3, for that matter - the kernel GPLv2 license in no way takes away the ability to use it in any other way that you've dual-licensed it). In other words, you cannot say "outside of the kernel, you ahve to use the GPLv3", because the GPLv2 usage _inside_ of the kernel requires that the GPLv2 also be usable outside of it. But you most definitely _can_ dual-license in general. It's perfectly fine to license something under the GPLv2 and allow redistribution with the kernel, _and_ have the same code as part of some other project under GPLv3. It's just that you cannot limit the kernel version to just a kernel project. Somebody can (at any time) take the Linux kernel, and turning it into some totally other GPL-v2-licensed project. (This really is not at all specific to the GPLv3 - the same thing holds for any other dual licensing with the GPL. You cannot license your proprietary code to be "GPL only within the kernel, and proprietary anywhere else". The GPL inherently requires that the code can be used in another project). Linus