Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Hạt nhân Linux" in Vietnamese language version.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.Lỗi chú thích: Thẻ
<ref> không hợp lệ: tên “COPYING” được định rõ nhiều lần, mỗi lần có nội dung khácpath: root/firmware/WHENCE
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
most consumer routers run an embedded version of Linux
<ref> không hợp lệ: tên “Blobs” được định rõ nhiều lần, mỗi lần có nội dung khác|ngày truy cập= và |archive-date= (trợ giúp)|newsgroup= (trợ giúp); Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |message-id= (trợ giúp)|newsgroup= (trợ giúp); Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |message-id= (trợ giúp)|newsgroup= (trợ giúp); Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |message-id= (trợ giúp)|newsgroup= (trợ giúp); Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |message-id= (trợ giúp)|newsgroup= (trợ giúp); Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |message-id= (trợ giúp)|archiveurl= và |archive-url= (trợ giúp)The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. This should not come as any surprise, as that's the same license that has been there since 0.12 or so, but I thought I'd make that explicitĐã bỏ qua tham số không rõ
|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.Lỗi chú thích: Thẻ
<ref> không hợp lệ: tên “COPYING” được định rõ nhiều lần, mỗi lần có nội dung khácpath: root/firmware/WHENCE
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Second, the war between Linus Torvalds and other Kernel developers and the Free Software Foundation over GPLv3 is continuing, with Torvalds saying he's fed up with the FSF.
|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve. However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the current FSF draft: 5.1 DRM Clauses [...] 5.2 Additional Restrictions Clause [...] 5.3 Patents Provisions [...] since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely.Quản lý CS1: sử dụng tham số tác giả (liên kết)
|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|mailinglist= (trợ giúp)|archiveurl= và |archive-url= (trợ giúp)|ngày truy cập= và |archive-date= (trợ giúp)