[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <466C7F28.3040805@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:46:00 -0400
From: James Bruce <bruce@...rew.cmu.edu>
To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Good luck convincing all contributors to do that.
Well, it's something that pro-GPLv3 people can do right now, instead of
just lobbying/complaining. Given 1000 developers, if 400 start dual
licensing now, and down the road some compelling reason for GPLv3 does
arise (read: a lawsuit with teeth), that's 600 people you need to
contact/convince to change, not 1000. This is made more interesting by
that fact that 40% of the kernel code is already "GPLv2 or later", as
someone else pointed out.
> Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be
> dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of
> doing so (and I don't yet).
Well, all my personal (non-kernel) stuff is still GPLv2 only right now
(Linus' opinion is what convinced me that "or later" is dumb), and like
many I disliked the original GPLv3 draft. I'm willing to wait until the
final one is out though, and I think my libraries will end up being
dual-licensed, with contributions required to be dual-licensed. I want
to avoid v3 lock-in, but I don't want to cripple v3 projects either.
> In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3
> has not even arrived in its final form yet.
Agreed.
- 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