Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758841AbXFJWq1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:46:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759816AbXFJWqR (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:46:17 -0400 Received: from SMTP.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.10.212]:49940 "EHLO smtp.andrew.cmu.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759626AbXFJWqQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:46:16 -0400 Message-ID: <466C7F28.3040805@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:46:00 -0400 From: James Bruce User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070329) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Juhl CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tarkan Erimer , debian developer , "david@lang.hm" , Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 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> <9a8748490706101447g54e9ac65yb1c81cf1249849da@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9a8748490706101447g54e9ac65yb1c81cf1249849da@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2152 Lines: 43 Jesper Juhl wrote: >> 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. Well, it's something that pro-GPLv3 people can do right now, instead of just lobbying/complaining. Given 1000 developers, if 400 start dual licensing now, and down the road some compelling reason for GPLv3 does arise (read: a lawsuit with teeth), that's 600 people you need to contact/convince to change, not 1000. This is made more interesting by that fact that 40% of the kernel code is already "GPLv2 or later", as someone else pointed out. > 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). Well, all my personal (non-kernel) stuff is still GPLv2 only right now (Linus' opinion is what convinced me that "or later" is dumb), and like many I disliked the original GPLv3 draft. I'm willing to wait until the final one is out though, and I think my libraries will end up being dual-licensed, with contributions required to be dual-licensed. I want to avoid v3 lock-in, but I don't want to cripple v3 projects either. > In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3 > has not even arrived in its final form yet. Agreed. - Jim Bruce - 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/