![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Patrick McLean wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:49:44 -0700 >> "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has >>> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but >>> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, >>> and have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus >>> on whether Linux will move to GPL3? >> >> >> No consensus exists, and it would require agreement from all the >> copyright >> holders. >> > > I don't think the kernel is going to move to v3, it's licensed > specifically as v2, this is from the top of COPYING: > > > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel > > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > > Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are > dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission. I can do a ceremony and call them with an eagle bone whistle and a Califonia Condor Feather. We can then ask them directly. GPL2 is fine if the kernel stays that way for my projects. moving forward, the patent retaliation clause is a great idea. Jeff > > - > 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/ > - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-20 20:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||