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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <912ec82a0706141142v2a7db410x16f18df16da855c2@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:42:16 +0300
From:	"Neshama Parhoti" <pneshama@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

Forgive me for a little off-topic question but I have a difficulty
to understand a technical issue about this all.

The Linux Kernel cannot easily switch licenses because of the
large amount of people involved in it (i.e. contributed code on which
they have copyright).

But many of FSF's GNU projects are similar - for example GCC has contributors
from many many companies and individuals, from which I presume there
are who might object to GPLv3.

So how come they can so easily move to GPLv3 ?
Don't they have to have permission from all of those contributors (many
of which are Linux companies and distributors who might prefer staying
at GPLv2) ?
-
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/