[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [14]   [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 Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > But not within the confines of the Linux kernel. Within the Linux kernel,
> > the GPLv2 rules - and "GPLv2+" becomes just "GPLv2", since the GPLv3 is
> > not compatible with v2.
> I understand this very well. You'd have to get the kernel upgraded to
> GPLv3 in order to accept the contribution.

Why do you keep saying "upgraded" to GPLv3? How is it an improvement to move
from a small, simple, elegant, and tested implementation to something that's
more complicated, less elegant, less coherent, totally untested, and full of
numerous special cases?

Bumping a version number is not in indicator of quality, and spending over
twice as much text to express the same legal principles is not an
improvement. So far, you haven't brought up a single reason to use v3 except
for a higher version number. (Not that I'm asking you to.) You've just
tried to argue that it isn't WORSE than the existing license.

"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
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: 2007-06-15 03:23    [W:0.462 / U:8.408 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site