Linux 0.97 is under GPL, isn't it?

[kmself at ix.netcom.com]

on Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:23:19PM +0100, Sven Dehmlow privat (sven_dehmlow at web.de) wrote:
> Hi,
> Linux 1.0 is under GPL, of course. But is Linux 0.1 is under Linus' "own"
> license. Is Linux 0.97 under GPL?

You can find historic versions of the Linux_ kernel at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/

The archive may be incomplete -- I see an 0.99.x and 0.96[abc].  No
0.97.  The 0.96 tarball contains no readily apparent COPYING file or
licensing notice, other than Linus's copyright.  It's possible (though I
don't know for certain) that the code has be retroactively included in
the GPL relicensing. 

Why specifically 0.97?

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>     http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.                    http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/        http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20001031/d55ca9c2/attachment.sig>