> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it > will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other > Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3 > and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
That is a misleading claim. While being dual-licensed would make it either for other projects to adopt Linux code, it would have three downsides: 1) If Linux code were adopted into other projects that were not dual-licensed, changes could not be imported back into Linux unless the changes were dual-licensed which is not likely when the contributions are made to a project that's not dual-licensed. 2) Linux could no longer take code from other projects that are GPL v2 licensed unless it could obtain them under a dual license. And, last and probably most serious: 3) Linux derivatives could be available with just a GPL v3 license and no GPL v2. license if the derivers wanted things that way. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
