Let's give this thread a rest, OK?
Whether or not Linux is licensed under the GPLv2 only or not is
ultimately a matter for the lawyers.
The one big problem I see with the GPLv3 effort is given the
additional restrictions regarding DRM, it doesn't seem to clear to me
whether a project which has even a single line of GPLv2-only code can
accept GPLv3 code. That is, GPLv3 is designed to be compatible with
more licenses, but that doesn't matter of GPLv2 isn't compatible with
GPLv3. If that is the case, if only a _single_ person (like Rogier)
has I want GPLv2-only, the whole project is can't use any GPLv3 code
unless they are willing to track down and rewrite all of the code
written by that person or persons.
If that is true (and again, at the end of the day lawyers or more
importantly, a judge is going to have to make that call, not debating
technologists) it's hard to see the GPLv3 making any headway.
- Ted
-
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/
[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]
