Alexandre Oliva wrote: > With a mere permission to combine, I can only enforce these provisions > over my own code.
What does "my own code" mean when we're talking about derivative works and code in the codebase influencing the design of later code? Code from one module gets copied into another. Code in one module influences the design of code in the kernel. New files are added with pieces from multiple other files. Are you seriously suggesting that the Linux kernel source contain code with various different licenses with an obligation for those who work on the source too keep track of which licenses apply to bits of code when they work on them? That seems impossible as a practical matter. All the kernel code not being available under the same license is a short term problem. Over time, the code will get so combined and interwoven that the intersection of all permitted licenses would soon apply to effectively the entire kernel. This would be no different from adopting GPLv3. Unless, that is, GPLv3 makes itself compatible with GPlv2. In which case it would be no different from doing nothing at all. (Except for all the pain it would cause as people diligently try to figure out what licenses apply to their code and try not to borrow code from parts of the kernel that have a different license from the parts they are working on.) 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/
