Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753396AbXFOTLq (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:11:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753103AbXFOTLi (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:11:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:56884 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752875AbXFOTLg (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:11:36 -0400 To: Alan Cox Cc: Rob Landley , Bernd Paysan , "Alan Milnes" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706141744.08408.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> <200706141917.58824.rob@landley.net> <20070615102331.35934956@the-village.bc.nu> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:10:50 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070615102331.35934956@the-village.bc.nu> (Alan Cox's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 10\:23\:31 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1892 Lines: 45 On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox wrote: >> 3) Another thing I've tried to do was to try to figure out why Linux >> developers seem to consider v2 better than v3 for their own goals. I >> must admit I failed. The presented reasons don't seem to distinguish >> v2 from v3 to me, or rather make v3 sound better. > What right does Linus or anyone else have to change the rules None. It would have to be an agreement between all parties involved. A difficult one, everyone knows. But see, this is a distraction. It doesn't even begin to address the relevant (to me) question: why Linux developers seem to consider v2 better than v3 for their own goals. I can appreciate the difficulties that there would be for switching from v2 to v3. This in itself might be a reason to not even try to switch to another license, no matter how much better it could possibly be. But it doesn't give any hint whatsoever as to why v2 is better than v3. In fact, it simply avoids addressing that point. Now, of course, each individual contributor may have different reasons to be part of the Linux community, and each individual contributor may have chosen v2 or v2+ or any other v2-compatible set of licensing terms for different reasons. I'd very much like to hear (err read), from those who think v2 serves their reasons to contribute to Linux better than v3, why that is so. Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - 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/