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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-15T02:48:54Z

On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:

> On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> I understand this very well. You'd have to get the kernel upgraded to
>> GPLv3 in order to accept the contribution.

> Why do you keep saying "upgraded" to GPLv3?

Just because it has a higher version number. Honest, no other
reason was implied.

I'm seriously not trying to push v3 here. I got into this to try to
dispell myths and get a better grasp of the situation.

> Bumping a version number is not in indicator of quality,

Agreed. Still, some people talk about upgrading from XP to Vista (ok,
no numbers here, but you get the idea), just like they talk about
upgrading from linux 2.4 to 2.6.

> So far, you haven't brought up a single reason to use v3

Sure, that was not my goal. I wasn't even trying.

Would you like me to?

> You've just tried to argue that it isn't WORSE than the existing
> license.

Good, it's nice when people get the idea of what I'm trying to
accomplish. I feared this had been lost in the noise.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}