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

Jesper Juhl
2007-06-10T21:48:00Z

On 10/06/07, James Bruce <bruce@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ snip ]
> > I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> > least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> > licensing under the GPLv3, though.
> [ snip ]
>
> 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.

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).

In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3
has not even arrived in its final form yet.

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html