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

From: Jesper Juhl
Date: Sun Jun 10 2007 - 17:48:02 EST

On 10/06/07, James Bruce <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ snip ]
> I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> licensing under the GPLv3, though.
[ snip ]

One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.

Good luck convincing all contributors to do that.

Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be
dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of
doing so (and I don't yet).

In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3
has not even arrived in its final form yet.

Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post
Plain text mails only, please
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at