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

Al Boldi
2007-06-20T12:07:58Z

david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Scott Preece wrote:
> >> On 6/19/07, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:
> >>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >>>> Tivo didn't make the Linux success. More Tivos can definitely undo
> >>>> it.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think so.
> >>>
> >>> First, it's not Linux that made success, but rather GNU that uses
> >>> Linux as its kernel. And, believe it or not, when people say Linux,
> >>> they really mean GNU. People could care less what kernel they were
> >>> running, as long as the system is up and runs the procs that offer
> >>> their services.
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Actually, for use in devices (like TiVos or cell phones), it is very
> >> definitely the kernel that is of interest. Many such devices use
> >> little or no GNU software (some manufacturers have consciously avoided
> >> it because of the possibility of shifts like the GPLv3 changes).
> >
> > Sure, but was it Linux in embedded devices that made Linux what it is
> > today, or was it GNU/Linux?
>
> if it was the GNU that made linux what it is today and the linux kernel
> mearly an oppurtunist then the GNU/Hurd, GNU/Solaris, GNU/BSD and for that
> matter GNU/Microsoft distributions should be steadily and quickly gaining
> marketshare

They may never reach critical mass, as GNU/Linux already crossed that border.
Their only hope may possibly be a drop-in kernel replacement to leverage the
vast availability of GNU/Linux distributions.

So what's this got to do with the GPLv2/v3 debate? It's the seemingly fair
GPLv2 that was possibly instrumental in growing this large GNU/Linux
community, and changing this fairness by hampering parties to enter this
community may well be counterproductive.

Thanks!

--
Al