DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
        b=YFYTG371886NSSbdelvK72lGosuIw6YvEZ7RIjYNmX7jH2UZcMMdiDOG2fefZvMZfA89pK9LRplKN2B1eLf+kkWMtQZWg8SdT63kFZd+PF4oLBQYSodsUzCiDuRN4i2L0ygehJC8yrfVR5HzM95ksD8PbmPuPzZGBeoZZCv1APk=
Message-ID: <3a0f49600706171014m6bc9af34s9dda0ea282a4d63@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:14:03 +0200
From: "Gabor Czigola" <czigola@gmail.com>
To: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 779
Lines: 19

Hello!

I didn't follow the whole thread from the beginning, but I see that
there are pros and cons for both versions of GPL.

I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is "as free as v2" and that includes
some ideas (from v3) that are considered as good (free, innovative, in
the spirit of whatever etc.) by the majority of the kernel developers.

I guess to have an own version of the GPL license could also help to
resolve (future) dual-licensing problems.

Gabor Czigola
-
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/