On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Joshua David Williams wrote:
On 6/18/07, Carlo Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
Now, writing yet another license for the linux kernel is
therefore NOT the solution - if you get my drift.
The new license could be written to be compatible with both versions of the
GPL. IMO, a new license written from the OSS perspective would behoove us
greatly in that we are no longer subject to this Higher Calling of the FSF
and the Church of Emacs.
no it couldn't
the GPLv2 says that if you combine it with any other license the result
must be GPLv2
the GPLv3 says that if you combine it with any other license the result
must be GPLv3
so you have one requirement saying that the result must be GPLv2 and
another that says you must be GPLv3. there isn't any way to resolve this
conflict.
David Lang
-
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]
