Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762313AbXFJVsA (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:48:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757302AbXFJVrv (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:47:51 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.179]:3965 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756689AbXFJVru (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:47:50 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=etCjA1CZIS0991GpCq3SvXyXl1lANw2qGBPE/2oxlnylL8GxidjKqfOnKTTvYACde4avRmhrc6ePu9EHJatzoAfvagLztiQcQMku/Po27S+BAjVPJ7VbNOhv6hMYWYRkFFZDOdQL0JYAEF8dc4SGgTB/FdvgayKW9B0Q1Y4Nc3g= Message-ID: <9a8748490706101447g54e9ac65yb1c81cf1249849da@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:47:50 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "James Bruce" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tarkan Erimer" , "debian developer" , "david@lang.hm" , "Andrew Morton" , mingo@elte.hu, greg@kroah.com In-Reply-To: <466C69D8.7030401@andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <20070609071231.GL2649@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030908@netone.net.tr> <466BCBBC.90305@netone.net.tr> <466C0901.4000405@netone.net.tr> <466C69D8.7030401@andrew.cmu.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1675 Lines: 36 On 10/06/07, James Bruce wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > [ snip ] > > I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at > > least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for > > licensing under the GPLv3, though. > [ snip ] > > One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers > at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead > of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3". > It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later", > because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4, > etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years > from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the > code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever > found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done. > Good luck convincing all contributors to do that. Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of doing so (and I don't yet). In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3 has not even arrived in its final form yet. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/