[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: GPLv3 Position Statement
    Hi Jörn :)

* Jörn Engel <> dixit:
> On Thu, 28 September 2006 16:19:32 +0200, DervishD wrote:
> > Probably the renaming is just common sense and will avoid ALL
> > problems. People like me are concerned only because all GPLv2 that
> > doesn't state otherwise will be released automagically under GPLv3 as
> > soon as the latest draft is made the official version. Otherwise, I
> > wouldn't give a hump about any new license until I have the time to
> > read it and see if I like it.
> In my very uninformed opinion, your problem is a very minor one.
> Your "v2 or later" code won't get the license v2 removed, it will
> become dual "v2 or v3" licensed. And assuming that v3 only adds
> restrictions and doesn't allow the licensee any additional rights,
> you, as the author, shouldn't have to worry much.

Really my problem is that I still don't fully understand neither
the new license nor the possible effects, so just in case I want to
decide if I want my code dual licensed or not. It's not a big worry,
I know, but I prefer things that way.

> The problem arises later. As with BSD/GPL dual licensed code,
> where anyone can take the code and relicense it as either BSD or
> GPL, "v2 or v3" code can get relicensed as v3 only. At this point,
> nothing is lost, as the identical "v2 or v3" code still exists.
> But with further development on the "v3 only" branch, you have a
> fork. And one that doesn't just require technical means to get
> merged back, but has legal restrictions.

See? I didn't have seen things from this point of view, and
that's the kind of problems I want to be aware of before allowing my
code to be dual licensed.

> And here the kernel wording with "v2 only" in the kernel is
> interesting. It turns a one-way compatibility into no
> compatibility at all. So the evolutionary advantage is lost, as it
> only exists through the "v2 or later" term.

Well, in my code that's exactly what I want regarding licenses.
Probably GPLv3 is better (I don't know yet) and probably GPLv4 will
be the best license out there, but I prefer to be precise about what
license do I use.

Thanks for your explanations :)

Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

Linux Registered User 88736 |
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-28 17:03    [W:0.329 / U:1.420 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site