Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: david@lang.hm
To: Gabor Czigola <czigola@gmail.com>
cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
In-Reply-To: <3a0f49600706171014m6bc9af34s9dda0ea282a4d63@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706171028130.28371@asgard.lang.hm>
References: <3a0f49600706171014m6bc9af34s9dda0ea282a4d63@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1051
Lines: 26

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Gabor Czigola wrote:

> 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.

well, for one thing creating a kernel-only license would immediatly make 
the kernel incompatible with all the GPLv2 code that's around.

that wouldn't be a win for anyone except people who want to lill linux.

David Lang
-
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/