Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:34:09 -0300 | From | "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <> | Subject | Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License) |
| |
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.
-- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." - 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/
| |