Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV licence issue

[Chris Andrew]

Michael,

Good points.  I'm not sure I like the idea of _assuming_ anything,
though.  If potential issues exist with a part of the kernel, then
let's flag it up and resolve it.  The possibility does exist that
something may have been overlooked.  This isn't meant to offend any of
the kernel contributors, it's just a way of making sure free software
stays free.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks,

Chris.

On 12/03/2008, Michael Fötsch <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   > What should we do in those cases, the ones it says "under GNU GPL"(not
>   > version) and the others that don't have neither copyright or licence.
>
>  1)
>  Since GPL 1, there's been this passage in the license:
>
>  "If the Program does not specify a version number of
>  the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
>  Foundation."
>
>  This means, if the developer who placed the software under the GPL read
>  and understood the license (which I think is fair to assume), he's okay
>  with any license.
>
>  Whatever version it ends up to be, it's fine, because all versions of
>  the GPL are free.
>
>  2)
>  If a file does not specify a license, I think it's fair to assume that
>  it's under the same license as the package that it's part of. (I think
>  this question came up before, but I can't find the thread right now.)
>
>
>  Kind Regards,
>  M.F.
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  gNewSense-users mailing list
>  address@hidden
>  http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
>


-- 
Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:

http://www.getgnulinux.org/

A great GNU/Linux distro:

http://wiki.gnewsense.org/