Linus Torvalds wrote:

[ snip ]

quoted text
> 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.
  - Jim Bruce
-

unsubscribe notice
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/