![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Monday 02 October 2006 04:55, Marc Perkel wrote: > Just a thought. Suppose we forked the GPL2 license and created the Linux > license? (Or some better name) It's kind of clear the Stallman has his > own ajenda and that it's not compatible with the Linux model. So - lets > fork it an start a new one. > > The idea of the new license is as follows. It would be backwards > compatible with GPL2. It's would eliminate the "or later" clause because > we have already seen the potential for abuse there. How can one agree to > future licenses without knowing what they are going to be? The other > feature is that the license is only modified to provide legal > clarification or to deal with future issues that occur as a result of > new technology or circumstances that we don't know about yet. If the > licenses is modified then copyright holders would then have to > explicitly declare that they accept the modifications by switching to > the new terms. I'd be behind such a license if it was 100% functionally equivalent to the GPL (ie, a reword just to get around the FSF Copyright of the GPL). I'd even license my own code under it. Linus, you want to chime in here? -- Patrick McFarland || http://AdTerrasPerAspera.com "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 - 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: 2006-10-02 11:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||