Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ snip ]
I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
licensing under the GPLv3, though.
[ snip ]
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.
- Jim Bruce
-
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]
