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

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> Now, if you guys can't recognize a goodwill gesture when you see one,
> and prefer to live in the paranoid beliefs that "those evil FSFers are
> trying to force me into a situation in which they'll then be able to
> steal my code", that's really up to you.  Don't try to shift the blame
> of your decisions onto the FSF.

> Hey, but that was precisely what I was suggesting!  Except that it
> wasn't with GPLv2 alone, because this doesn't work.  Each copyleft
> license insists that it be *the* license.  So, in order to be able to
> combine two copyleft licenses, you need mutual compatibility
> provisions in both.  Which is what I was proposing.

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
reason they're not willing to adopt GPLv3. (They want people who receive
derivative works of their programs to get all the GPLv2 rights, not just
some of them.)

I don't see any compromise that means that people don't get all the rights
to Linux that the GPLv2 grants as working.

DS


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/