Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:28:22 -0700 (PDT) | From | Marc Perkel <> | Subject | Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License) |
| |
--- Kevin Bowling <lkml@kev009.com> wrote:
> > 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 :-). >
Yes - that is exactly what I'm suggesting. If the agreement is the same but the name of the agreement changes I don't think you would have that much of a transition. GPL2=LKL. But the confusion created by FSF would go away.
If Linux is staying with GPL2 then this would signal to the world that there's a fork and that Linux is going in a different direction.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz - 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/
| |