http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
Linus Torvalds 在 Linux Kernel Mailing List 上發信鄭重表示 Linux 的
核心將會繼續採用 GPL v2 的授權方式。他表示："version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version" in the GPL copying
file is not part of the actual License itself. 他表示，這是解釋性的
文字，而非授權的一部份。他的意思是說，這段文字只是告訴你是否要讓你
的程式碼繼續採用 GPL 後續版本，完全看你自己的意見，如果你要停留在
v2 那就繼續使用，如果你要換到 v3 也沒問題。而不是說採用了 v2 之後，
當 v3 出來時，就必須使用 v3。
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:39:16 -0500 (EST)
From Linus Torvalds <>
Subject Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
>
> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
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.
Linus※ 相關報導：
＊ Torvalds：GPL3不適用Linux
http://taiwan.cnet.com/news/software/0,2000064574,20104127,00.htm
