linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:58:22 +0300
From:	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>
To:	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>
CC:	"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr> wrote:
>> debian developer wrote:
>> > On 6/10/07, david@...g.hm <david@...g.hm> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >  And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
>> >> owner can
>> >> >> >  hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
>> >> >> >  copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law
>> >> orders at
>> >> >> >  this point for copyright holding ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  David Lang
>> >> > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better
>> >> idea to
>> >> > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting
>> >> such  90+
>> >> > years!
>> >>
>> >> exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of 
>> active
>> >> developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
>> >> (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is
>> >> better it
>> >
>> > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
>> > the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
>> > should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
>> > community can discuss the future steps.
>> Yep, the GPLv3 probably will release around July time. So;luckily, we
>> had very little time to see the final decision about it :-) I hope we
>> should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the OpenSolaris
>> via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). So,we should
>> have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-)
>>
>>
>>
> I don't think that upgrading to GPLv3 just for the sake of tools
> present in some other software should be the reason. We are capable
> enough of developing our own tools, and many experienced people are
> working on equivalent(etx4 etc.,) and much sophisticated tools for the
> linux kernel.
It is not because of the sake of the tools and we have no capable enough 
developers. It's just about an example that came to my mind, as I 
mentioned before and also,it is the same thing as we, all the time, did. 
I mean getting and sharing codes from many different open source 
projects like BSD and countless others. So, OpenSolaris makes no 
difference at this.

Regards,

Tarkan
-
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/