linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5d6222a80706142334m9f39383v20aff191f4501c50@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:34:09 -0300
From:	"Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <glommer@...il.com>
To:	"Marc Perkel" <mperkel@...oo.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <mperkel@...oo.com> wrote:
> 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.

It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much
like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition
unfeasible, the same may apply here.

-- 
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
-
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/