On Jun 18, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Joshua David Williams wrote: >> On 6/18/07, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Now, writing yet another license for the linux kernel is >>> therefore NOT the solution - if you get my drift. >> >> The new license could be written to be compatible with both versions of the >> GPL.
> no it couldn't It could. Just not as part of the same work. I.e., it wouldn't be compatible in both directions, so it wouldn't make some of the most vocal Linux developers in that other thread happy. But you could achieve one-way compatibility in various ways: GPLv2+, after GPLv3 is published, and before there's a GPLv4, is pretty much it. One could also come up with any license that permits use under the terms of the GPLv2 or the GPLv3. One could also dual-license under GPLv2 and GPLv3. FWIW, IANAL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
