![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 10/06/07, James Bruce <bruce@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > [ snip ] > > I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at > > least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for > > licensing under the GPLv3, though. > [ snip ] > > One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers > at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead > of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3". > It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later", > because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4, > etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years > from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the > code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever > found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done. > Good luck convincing all contributors to do that. Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of doing so (and I don't yet). In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3 has not even arrived in its final form yet. -- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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: 2007-06-10 21:51 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||