Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV: GPL without version - does COPYING apply or not?

[Sam Geeraerts]

Markus Laire wrote:
> Sam Geeraerts wrote:
> > Markus Laire wrote:
> > > I just finished section drivers/watchdog
> > >
> > > There were three files where license mentioned GPL but not any 
> > > version nor the COPYING file.
> > >
> > > Since I'm not sure whether COPYING file applies in these cases or 
> > > not, I decided to mark these three cases as "GPL (only GPLv2 if 
> > > COPYING applies)".
> > >
> > > Is this OK?
> > Just "GPL" means "GPL, any version", so it's not restricted to GPLv2 
> > only (although for the Linux kernel only GPLv2 matters). I would mark 
> > them as just GPL.
>
> Well, it's not that simple in this case because COPYING says "Also note 
> that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned 
> is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or 
> whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."
>
> So if the file was written specifically for Linux Kernel, by just 
> mentioning GPL author could've meant "GPL as specified in COPYING file" 
> since he doesn't "explicitly state otherwise".
>
> Or author could've meant "GPL, any version"
>
> So I prefered to inform readers of this ambiguity by stating "GPL (only 
> GPLv2 if COPYING applies)".
Good point, I see how that could be confusing. I think that statement in 
COPYING means that in the context of the Linux kernel all code that can 
be treated as GPLv2 (e.g. license is Just GPL or modified BSD) must be 
treated as GPLv2. That restriction does not apply outside the Linux 
kernel. So your statement is not wrong for this purpose.

As for the "explicitly otherwise stated" part: a copyright holder can 
explicitly choose another version of the GPL for their code if they want 
to. But neither GPLv1 nor GPLv3 are compatible with GPLv2, so this 
option is useless.

That brings up the question: is there any GPLv3 code in the kernel? 
Probably not, because I think Linus is wary of that. But it would have 
to be removed because of it's incompatibility.