GPLv2 or GPLv3 ?

[Ian Petersen]

On 5/14/07, Christopher Friedt <cfriedt-u6hQ6WWl8Q3d1t4wvoaeXtBPR1lH4CV8 at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Has Linus mentioned anything about moving to the GPLv3 ?

I've heard it said that the kernel can't move to v3 because there are
significant parts of it for which the original copyright owner can't
be contacted (either because no one knows who that is or because the
person has died).  My understanding is that all copyright holders of a
derived work must agree together to change the license so the kernel
can't be relicensed.  Now, it might be possible to get agreement to
switch from a large portion of the developers and rewrite the bits
owned by dissenters and those that can't comment, but I don't know how
much work that would be.

> If not, will developers using the kernels be limited to using GPLv2 tools ?

I don't think a GPLv2 kernel puts any limits on acceptable licenses
for userspace, given that, for example, you can run closed
applications on Linux with no legal consequences.

Ian

-- 
Tired of pop-ups, security holes, and spyware?
Try Firefox: http://www.getfirefox.com
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists