Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:22:37 -0700 (PDT) | From | Marc Perkel <> | Subject | Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License) |
| |
--- Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <mperkel@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 > debate > > and the problem is that it leads to confusion. > GPL3 is > > nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to > believe > > that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved. > > > > So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is > > unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license > and > > call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. > So > > LKL could equal GPL2. > > It seems it would require agreement by all copyright > holders, much > like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the > 2->3 transition > unfeasible, the same may apply here.
Would it still be a problem if the licenses were exactly the same?
____________________________________________________________________________________ Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php - 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/
| |