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
-
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| James Bottomley | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Andrew Morton | echo mem > /sys/power/state |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
| Michael S. Tsirkin | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/19] vbus: add connection-client helper infrastructure |
| NeilBrown | [PATCH 00/18] Assorted md patches headed for 2.6.30 |
| Justin Piszcz | General question (scheduler) with SSDs? |
| Neil Brown | Re: Any hope for a 27 disk RAID6+1HS array with four disks reporting "No md superb... |
| Ryan Wagoner | High IO Wait with RAID 1 |
