linux-kernel - Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

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: <20070615062152.4369.qmail@web52502.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Marc Perkel <mperkel@...oo.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

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.

Thoughts?

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
-
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/