Rik van Riel wrote: > It would be very bad if Linus started applying code with > a dubious license to the kernel, if we want to keep the > kernel GPL v2. > I believe it says explicitly in our patches that they are licensed under GPL v2. > Having an explicit license and a Signed-off-by: line are > things to remember with big patch sets. At the very least > a Signed-off-by: line. > There is a Signed-off-by line on every patch I send out, with full knowledge that this constitutes the work of the author of the said line, and full knowledge that this commits the patch into the domain of the GPL license. Sorry for sounding like a lawyer here. IANAL, but I thought that was completely implicit in all patches made to GPL'd software. The signed off by provides accountability and open licensing simultaneously. But most importantly, I really don't understand how it is possible to make a patch to the Linux kernel and not release it under GPL. Zach
