Jesper Juhl wrote:
Well, it's something that pro-GPLv3 people can do right now, instead of
just lobbying/complaining. Given 1000 developers, if 400 start dual
licensing now, and down the road some compelling reason for GPLv3 does
arise (read: a lawsuit with teeth), that's 600 people you need to
contact/convince to change, not 1000. This is made more interesting by
that fact that 40% of the kernel code is already "GPLv2 or later", as
someone else pointed out.
> Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be
Well, all my personal (non-kernel) stuff is still GPLv2 only right now
(Linus' opinion is what convinced me that "or later" is dumb), and like
many I disliked the original GPLv3 draft. I'm willing to wait until the
final one is out though, and I think my libraries will end up being
dual-licensed, with contributions required to be dual-licensed. I want
to avoid v3 lock-in, but I don't want to cripple v3 projects either.
> In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3
Agreed.
- Jim Bruce
-
| Jeff Garzik | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Christoph Hellwig | Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scan... |
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jens Axboe | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Emmanuel Dreyfus | fixing send(2) semantics (kern/29750) |
| Christos Zoulas | Re: Melting down your network [Subject changed] |
| Juan RP | Changing the I/O scheduler on-the-fly |
| Emmanuel Dreyfus | Re: fixing send(2) semantics (kern/29750) |
