Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757377AbXFOApP (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:45:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753441AbXFOApF (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:45:05 -0400 Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:50809 "EHLO grelber.thyrsus.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753805AbXFOApD (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:45:03 -0400 From: Rob Landley Organization: Boundaries Unlimited To: davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:45:05 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706142045.05356.rob@landley.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1666 Lines: 36 On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:42 David Schwartz wrote: > I don't know who you are talking to or what you are talking about. I > haven't seen anybody doing what you claim in this thread or anywhere else > and I certainly am not. I'm asking what is the _point_ of the discussion? Linux, the project, is available under GPLv2 only. It is not available under GPLv3, and its maintainers (both Linus, his lieutenants, and numerous other contributors) have expressed an explicit desire NOT to license it as such. So what are the people talking about GPLv3 trying to accomplish? Are they: A) Trying to unanimously change the mind of Linus, his lieutentants, and all the other contributors who have spoken up in favor of GPLv2 only, so that future versions of Linux grew a new license? (Doesn't matter if this new license is GPlv3, MPL, or BSD. It's a new license Linux is not currently distributed under. Bits of Linux are separately distributed under other licenses such as BSD, but Linux is not and won't be any time soon.) B) Proposing the creation of a fork of Linux which identifies and replaces all the code that can't be licensed under GPLv3? C) Moving to another codebase (Solaris? The Hurd) and trying to identify Linux code that can be ported to that other OS under another license? D) Blowing smoke to no actual purpose? Right now, it's looking like D. Is there an E that I'm not seeing? Rob - 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/