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

debian developer
2007-06-12T18:07:25Z

On 6/10/07, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> > On 6/10/07, david@lang.hm <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner
> > > can
> > > >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> > > >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders
> > > at
> > > >> > this point for copyright holding ?
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> > > >>
> > > >> David Lang
> > > > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea
> > > to
> > > > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such
> > > 90+
> > > > years!
> > >
> > > exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> > > developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> > > (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
> >
> > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> > the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
> > should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
> > community can discuss the future steps.
>
> "future steps"? Hah.
>
> My code is going to stay GPLv2 as the v3 license is horrible for kernel
> code for all of the reasons I have said in the past, plus a few more
> (what, I can make an "industrial" product but not a commercial one?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What exactly in GPLv3 forbids you from making a commercial product?