Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965279AbWJBS06 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:26:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965280AbWJBS05 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:26:57 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.233]:19169 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965261AbWJBS0z (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:26:55 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=A4cgmxLbL5LgRIBSRKc2tOImUtvuESNJFrmtFM1SJZuJ2HKepfvME+T/HlwkaBdHUVl3oc9DD0f4dSy9uaM9+n3wABvcFE2TysZTHePmE4iSaggDvsoQW1AozEHUg3JYBOoP+zyjmTMjMX3OObmX5AvHKypzHhPVdGRkECh172k= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:26:54 -0500 From: "James Dickens" To: "Patrick McFarland" Subject: Re: Maybe it's time to fork the GPL License - create the Linux license? Cc: "Marc Perkel" , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" In-Reply-To: <200610020525.05941.diablod3@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060928144028.GA21814@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <4520D40F.8080500@perkel.com> <200610020525.05941.diablod3@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2278 Lines: 49 On 10/2/06, Patrick McFarland wrote: > On Monday 02 October 2006 04:55, Marc Perkel wrote: > > Just a thought. Suppose we forked the GPL2 license and created the Linux > > license? (Or some better name) It's kind of clear the Stallman has his > > own ajenda and that it's not compatible with the Linux model. So - lets > > fork it an start a new one. > > > > The idea of the new license is as follows. It would be backwards > > compatible with GPL2. It's would eliminate the "or later" clause because > > we have already seen the potential for abuse there. How can one agree to > > future licenses without knowing what they are going to be? The other > > feature is that the license is only modified to provide legal > > clarification or to deal with future issues that occur as a result of > > new technology or circumstances that we don't know about yet. If the > > licenses is modified then copyright holders would then have to > > explicitly declare that they accept the modifications by switching to > > the new terms. > > I'd be behind such a license if it was 100% functionally equivalent to the GPL > (ie, a reword just to get around the FSF Copyright of the GPL). I'd even > license my own code under it. > it doesn't matter, how compatible it is, there is still the problem that all past code submitters would have to agree to it. Since they submitted their code to be gpl v2. James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com > Linus, you want to chime in here? > > -- > Patrick McFarland || http://AdTerrasPerAspera.com > "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, > we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and > listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, > Inc, 1989 > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/