On 10/06/07, James Bruce  wrote:

quoted text
> 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  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html

Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

-

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/