Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756244AbXFULf7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:35:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754335AbXFULfw (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:35:52 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]:10341 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754202AbXFULfv (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:35:51 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cd14SoFrq6XbOWHCsNgnj2TTAC8J0ohLd+23RwjcP5oE7IbuXmh7+LkyIOYJC501hkU8qygX+cm5TXauqkdYR56Q0fQXdnBQ69PPwM1wRWNeQnQ/Mb52pa40FNsQuDZnlAmkio9kWczfgyx9sfphERNHnZ+tuimqNZztz8VXRso= Message-ID: <467A6290.80602@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:05:44 +0530 From: jimmy bahuleyan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandre Oliva CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 OpenPGP: url=subkeys.pgp.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1291 Lines: 29 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Here's an idea that just occurred to me, after all the discussions > about motivations, tit-for-tat, authors' wishes and all. > > If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with > code under GPLv2, this wouldn't be enough for GPLv3 projects to use > Linux code, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux code to use GPLv3 > projects. That's because GPLv2 would still demand all code to be > licensed under GPLv2, and GPLv3 wouldn't permit this. > > However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under > GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual > compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link > with code under GPLv3 (or even GPLv3+, constrained by some condition > if you will), then: > There, that right there, wouldn't it again require a 'nod' from all those who have contributed to the kernel (because at the time they did, the license was GPLv2 without any additions)? -jb -- Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy. - 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/