[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 10/06/07, James Bruce <> 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 <>
Don't top-post
Plain text mails only, please
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: 2007-06-10 23:51    [W:0.574 / U:6.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site