| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:47:38 -0700 From: "Kevin Bowling" <lkml@...009.com> To: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <glommer@...il.com> Cc: "Marc Perkel" <mperkel@...oo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License) On 6/14/07, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com> wrote: > On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <mperkel@...oo.com> wrote: > > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate > > and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is > > nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe > > that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved. > > > > So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is > > unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and > > call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So > > LKL could equal GPL2. > > It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much > like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition > unfeasible, the same may apply here. If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the name simply be changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 vs GPL3. Same verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep cutting into our corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to agree :-). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists