Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV licence issue

[Bake Timmons]

> Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but if a kernel contributor submitted a
> patch/driver or whatever that said "Under GPL" and is in turn
> distributed in the kernel.org source tree, wouldn't the distribution
> be choosing GPLv2 like the rest of the kernel? It would still be
> meeting the author's terms (GPL), the terms of the GPL (you may choose
> any version) with the additional clarification made by being
> distributed in a v2+v2-compatible work? I mean, they wouldn't have
> distributed it under v3 since it's not compatible with the rest of the
> codebase. Additionally, since GNU GPLv2 was written in June 1991, and
> Linux licensed under "the GPL" in December of 1991 we can assume it
> was never GPLv1.
>

While I am finding these comments informative, for our present purposes,
if the top of the file is, in effect,

/* Under GPL */

then I would just copy and paste it like any other notice, since all we
have to do is show that the file is free and not give any further
interpretation.