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

Greg KH
2007-06-10T16:03:32Z

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?
That's horrible...)

thanks,

greg k-h