Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:22:10 +0530 | From | "debian developer" <> | Subject | Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License) |
| |
On 6/15/07, Kevin Bowling <lkml@kev009.com> wrote: > On 6/14/07, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <mperkel@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate > > > and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is > > > nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe > > > that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved. > > > > > > So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is > > > unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and > > > call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So > > > LKL could equal GPL2. > > > > It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much > > like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition > > unfeasible, the same may apply here. > > If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the name simply be > changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 vs GPL3. Same > verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep cutting into our > corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to agree :-).
Even if it's just a name change, it will be a different license and requires the agreement of all authors. It's much easier( not that we want to) to go to GPLv3 than go to LKL. - 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/
| |