I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate
and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is
nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe
that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved.
So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is
unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and
call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So
LKL could equal GPL2.
Thoughts?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate
> and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is
> nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe
> that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved.
>
> So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is
> unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and
> call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So
> LKL could equal GPL2.
It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much
like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition
unfeasible, the same may apply here.
--
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
On 6/14/07, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate
> > and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is
> > nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe
> > that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved.
> >
> > So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is
> > unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and
> > call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So
> > LKL could equal GPL2.
>
> It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much
> like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition
> unfeasible, the same may apply here.
If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the name simply be
changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 vs GPL3. Same
verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep cutting into our
corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to agree :-).
On 6/15/07, Kevin Bowling <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate
> > > and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is
> > > nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe
> > > that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved.
> > >
> > > So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is
> > > unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and
> > > call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So
> > > LKL could equal GPL2.
> >
> > It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much
> > like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition
> > unfeasible, the same may apply here.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the name simply be
> changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 vs GPL3. Same
> verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep cutting into our
> corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to agree :-).
Even if it's just a name change, it will be a different license and requires the
agreement of all authors. It's much easier( not that we want to) to go
to GPLv3 than
go to LKL.
On 15-06-2007 08:52, debian developer wrote:
...
> Even if it's just a name change, it will be a different license and
> requires the
> agreement of all authors. It's much easier( not that we want to) to go
> to GPLv3 than
> go to LKL.
Doing bad things is usually much easier than good things.
After doing something much easier redoing it may be much
harder or even impossible. And this need of agreement of
all authors looks like a really promising principle of
large project management...
Regards,
Jarek P.
--- Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3
> debate
> > and the problem is that it leads to confusion.
> GPL3 is
> > nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to
> believe
> > that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved.
> >
> > So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is
> > unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license
> and
> > call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short.
> So
> > LKL could equal GPL2.
>
> It seems it would require agreement by all copyright
> holders, much
> like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the
> 2->3 transition
> unfeasible, the same may apply here.
Would it still be a problem if the licenses were
exactly the same?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
--- Kevin Bowling <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the
> name simply be
> changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2
> vs GPL3. Same
> verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep
> cutting into our
> corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to agree :-).
>
Yes - that is exactly what I'm suggesting. If the
agreement is the same but the name of the agreement
changes I don't think you would have that much of a
transition. GPL2=LKL. But the confusion created by FSF
would go away.
If Linux is staying with GPL2 then this would signal
to the world that there's a fork and that Linux is
going in a different direction.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz