[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <466C69D8.7030401@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:15:04 -0400
From: James Bruce <bruce@...rew.cmu.edu>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ snip ]
> I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> licensing under the GPLv3, though.
[ snip ]
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.
- Jim Bruce
-
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