[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:0.023 / U:8.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site