| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <467A6290.80602@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:05:44 +0530 From: jimmy bahuleyan <knight.camelot@...il.com> To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Here's an idea that just occurred to me, after all the discussions > about motivations, tit-for-tat, authors' wishes and all. > > If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with > code under GPLv2, this wouldn't be enough for GPLv3 projects to use > Linux code, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux code to use GPLv3 > projects. That's because GPLv2 would still demand all code to be > licensed under GPLv2, and GPLv3 wouldn't permit this. > > However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under > GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual > compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link > with code under GPLv3 (or even GPLv3+, constrained by some condition > if you will), then: > There, that right there, wouldn't it again require a 'nod' from all those who have contributed to the kernel (because at the time they did, the license was GPLv2 without any additions)? -jb -- Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists