Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[James Bruce <bruce@andrew.cmu.edu>]

Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
>> at least started to dual-license their submissions.  I.e. if instead
>> of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
>> It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
>> because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
>> etc).  What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
>> from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
>> code will already be GPLv3 compatible.  That way, if a reason is ever
>> found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.
>>
> Good luck convincing all contributors to do that.

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
> dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of
> doing so (and I don't yet).

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
> has not even arrived in its final form yet.

Agreed.

  - Jim Bruce