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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706171028130.28371@asgard.lang.hm>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Gabor Czigola <czigola@...il.com>
cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Gabor Czigola wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I didn't follow the whole thread from the beginning, but I see that
> there are pros and cons for both versions of GPL.
>
> I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
> an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is "as free as v2" and that includes
> some ideas (from v3) that are considered as good (free, innovative, in
> the spirit of whatever etc.) by the majority of the kernel developers.
>
> I guess to have an own version of the GPL license could also help to
> resolve (future) dual-licensing problems.

well, for one thing creating a kernel-only license would immediatly make 
the kernel incompatible with all the GPLv2 code that's around.

that wouldn't be a win for anyone except people who want to lill linux.

David Lang
-
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/