[LinuxBIOS] PATCH: GPL Header for som/ims/p2b code.
uwe at hermann-uwe.de
Mon Oct 9 22:42:54 CEST 2006
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 11:28:35AM -0500, Richard Smith wrote:
> > I don't see a problem with "v2 or later". Everybody who doesn't like to
> > use GPLv3 (when it's released) can just chose to use v2. That's
> > perfectly legal.
> Actually I don't think we have a choice.
> LWN.net just ran an article on the busybox GPLv2 GPLv3 issue which has
> caused a fork of busybox.
I guess you talk about this: http://lwn.net/Articles/202106/
(which I cannot read until Oct 12, unfortunately).
> One of the things I see in that article is
> that GPLv2 only code cannot co-exist with v3 code.
I'm not too familiar with the (plans for) GPLv3, but that may indeed be
However, any "GPLv2 or later" code is very well compatible with the
GPLv3 (by definition). That's one reason why we might want to use
"GPLv2 or later" wherever possible.
> We have included kernel code which is v2 only. Therefore our entire
> base must be v2 only.
I don't think so. Some parts are GPLv2, some are "GPLv2 or later", that's
fine. The problems only start when we try to move all the code to GPLv3
or "GPLv3 or later".
In that case we'll simply fail, as we're not the copyright owners of the
kernel code (which is GPLv2 only), so we can't convert all the code to GPLv3.
Still, there would be the possibility to either reimplement the GPLv2
code, or remove it altogether, or nicely ask the kernel guys to relicense
it to either GPLv3 or "GPLv3 or later".
OK, one thing I didn't say so far: I am not a lawyer! :) All I say could
be complete, utter crap.
http://www.it-services-uh.de | http://www.crazy-hacks.org
http://www.holsham-traders.de | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the coreboot