Linus Torvalds nu va trece Kernelul sub GPLv3 !

Linus Torvalds has weighed in on the debate over the draft of version 3 of the GPL in a post on the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) this afternoon. Torvalds says( http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273 ) that the Linux kernel "in general" has always been covered under version 2 of the GPL, and that that isn't going to change.Torvalds made the statement on the LKML to clarify the version of the GPL covering the Linux kernel. While many GPLed projects include the clause, "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version," which would allow anyone to license code under the GPLv3 when it is finalized, the kernel does not. Torvalds wrote ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273 ): The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid. The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your source code. The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later version" language), but the kernel in general never has. In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state so explicitly. Linux never did. So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points so that there wouldn't be any confusion. The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general. And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code. > If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if > someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the > kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL. No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to not allow conversion. Conversion isn't going to happen. Linushttp://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/01/25/238257&tid=147-------------Comentarii interesante..-------------Linus disappoints again (Score:1)By Kellito (189945) on 2006.01.27 5:23 (#122009)Hi everyone! Bitter news coming from Linus Torvalds again. In my opinion he is doing the wrong favor to the community. And with every such stupid and emotional act like this, I am loosing more and more respect for this finn. No I have no respect for him at all!! Indeed - who is he to dictate about the license of the kernel? He started the kernel but which of his own code does the kernel currently contain? Come on! You own nothing to dictate us, the users. Stop this foolish war on RMS and FSF. You're are nobody without GNU. As much as I dislike the social type as RMS, I must admit he is a very clever person and doing real favors for the free software community and open source movement. Unlike Torvalds, who in the last couple of years demonstrated to be of too emotional to hold the title of a benevolent dictator of such an important public piece of software as the kernel. Probably good time to look seriosely into the kernel alternatives for the truly free OS of the new millenium. Re:Shifting Sand (Score:0)By Anonymous Reader on 2006.01.26 9:19 (#121954)Indeed. I hope he can change his mind, 'cause it's still not too late. GPL 3 is the future for software's freedom, whether he likes it or not. And no, even Linus cannot escape it. He'll be forced to use GPL 3 or suffer a MASSIVE userbase shift to another Kernel...and I'm sure he doesn't want that. Not everything (Score:1)By alandd (186608) on 2006.01.26 8:55 (#121952)Linus is fully aware and appreciative of the freedom provided by the GPL. "I changed the copyright to the GPL within roughly half a year: it quickly became evident that my original copyright was so restrictive that it prohibited some entirely valid uses (disk copying services etc - this was before CD-ROM's became really popular). And while I was nervous about the GPL at first, I also wanted to show my appreciation to the gcc C compiler that Linux depended on, which was obviously GPL'd. Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did." (Full interview: http://kde.sw.com.sg/food/linus.html [sw.com.sg])