Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754874AbXFVByV (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:54:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753354AbXFVBxv (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:53:51 -0400 Received: from paragon.brong.net ([66.232.154.163]:54433 "EHLO paragon.brong.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754027AbXFVBxt (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:53:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:18:12 +1000 From: Bron Gondwana To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? Message-ID: <20070622011812.GF30132@brong.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1926 Lines: 40 On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > 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: My god, you really have come totally unhinged in your attempt to reconcile two incompatible ideas. Ouch. The reason the GPLv2 ecosystem is so strong is that you can take any code under GPLv2 and combine it with any other code under GPLv2 and the result is GPLv2. All you have to check is that the original code is either GPLv2 or a licence that allows conversion to GPLv2, that's it. None of this "Projects" nonsense. Who says what code is a "project" and if it has any special relationships with other "projects" that allow code sharing above and beyond their standard licence terms. Suddenly using other GPLv2 code becomes fraught with "which path did I obtain this licence down" games and either a big fat pile of paperwork or plain not being able to be clear about the licencing of of the code. It's not about projects, it's about the code. Gah. You're not going to make a happy, happy merging code sharing world by fragmenting the licence landscape even more. Bron. - 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/