On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the
disaster that were the earlier drafts.
I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.
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. All I've heard are shrill voices about
"tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument
seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push
the GPLv3).
Linus
-
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Srivatsa Vaddagiri | containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Benjamin Herrenschmidt | Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 6/7] [CCID-2/3]: Fix sparse warnings |
