Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 02:34:19 EST

On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <mperkel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate
and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is
nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe
that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved.

So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is
unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and
call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So
LKL could equal GPL2.

It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much
like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition
unfeasible, the same may apply here.

Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
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