From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:56:50 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@netone.net.tr>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <18027.50727.190221.80822@notabene.brown> <20070610144023.1cca3ae4@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: <20070610144023.1cca3ae4@the-village.bc.nu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200706100956.50440.dhazelton@enter.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1197
Lines: 25

On Sunday 10 June 2007 09:40:23 Alan Cox wrote:
> > But I think this is largely academic.  You only need a fairly small
> > number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> > the process would be pointless.  And at last count, the number of
> > kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high.  Of course
> > no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
> > lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.
>
> You can take a fair bet someone will say no, or much more likely they or
> whoever inherited their copyright will say $50,000

I seeds shades of Merkey there :P

Seriously, though, this was all settled a long time ago. Linus said "While 
individual parts of the kernel *could* be licensed [with another license] the 
kernel as a whole is strictly GPLv2" (I've tried to get it right, but my 
memory isn't as good as it used to be when it comes to useful quotes like 
that)

DRH
-
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/