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. 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. Agreed. - Jim Bruce -
| Alan | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Thomas Gleixner | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc1 |
| Davide Libenzi | Re: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2 |
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Neil Horman | Re: [PATCH] net: implement emergency route cache rebulds when gc_elasticity is exc... |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
