Re:Nano is no longer a GNU project
by synchronise on Thursday June 23, 2016 @12:38AM
(#11958871)
Out of curiosity, how much code is actually GPLv2 only, and how hard would it be to replace those sections with code that was GPLv2+?
A lot of the core code (and dissapointingly, btrfs) is GPLv2-only. So rewrites are unlikely, you'd have to ask contributors to update the license.
Just do a grep for "at your option", since that's the wording in the copyright header to specify that it's released under GPLv2-or-later, tells me that it isn't that great. It's around 10000 files (Linux has ~50000 files) so it's ~20% of files. This doesn't account for documentation or files that don't specify that they are under GPLv2-or-later.
Re:Nano is no longer a GNU project
by synchronise on Thursday June 23, 2016 @05:53AM
(#11959825)
Was there any specific reason that license was chosen for btrfs that you know of?
My guess is >Oracle. They want to make the minimum possible community contribution.
Note: I just realised that I licensed kernel/cgroup_pids.c under GPLv2-only. which is wrong. I've sent a patch that also includes a fix to that header.
Not to mention that much of the code inside Linux is under GPLv2-or-later, but because some of it is GPLv2-only the whole work is GPLv2-only.