Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

> It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their
> contributions to it don't want people to create derivative works of their
> works that can't be Tivoized. They see this as a feature, and it's the

Untrue. Many of us think (and the lawyers are unsure) that it is covered
by GPLv2 anyway. Some drivers actually make this clear in their comments
about intepretation
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
    • From: "David Schwartz" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
    • From: Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]>
  • RE: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
    • From: "David Schwartz" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] schedule BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA for removal
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] schedule BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA for removal
• Previous by thread: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
• Next by thread: RE: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]