Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755069AbXFOGwU (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:52:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753043AbXFOGwN (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:52:13 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.228]:62940 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752508AbXFOGwM (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:52:12 -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=RxjUh+pN1LZSfcBFb2K2ugEFk0DdIcKqRAZWLiJpc0N5SMfPOWv8MJxRsmz7wy9Nypio4ub+W9JBikVUJ1oCxHN3MBblbM6msZRVsk4hj45h17Y+/L5HCdIvgo71v2VZX0V/dS5IOx+MhseQKCXIguGvodqRaA6g3N4j6y2mvPE= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:22:10 +0530 From: "debian developer" To: "Kevin Bowling" Subject: Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License) Cc: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" , "Marc Perkel" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <11f674920706142347t297dc6e7w82486c9787195f08@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070615062152.4369.qmail@web52502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <5d6222a80706142334m9f39383v20aff191f4501c50@mail.gmail.com> <11f674920706142347t297dc6e7w82486c9787195f08@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1477 Lines: 31 On 6/15/07, Kevin Bowling wrote: > On 6/14/07, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > > On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel wrote: > > > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate > > > and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is > > > nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe > > > that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved. > > > > > > So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is > > > unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and > > > call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So > > > LKL could equal GPL2. > > > > It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much > > like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition > > unfeasible, the same may apply here. > > If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the name simply be > changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 vs GPL3. Same > verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep cutting into our > corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to agree :-). Even if it's just a name change, it will be a different license and requires the agreement of all authors. It's much easier( not that we want to) to go to GPLv3 than go to LKL. - 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/