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

From: Kevin Bowling
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 02:47:58 EST

On 6/14/07, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the name simply be
changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 vs GPL3. Same
verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep cutting into our
corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to agree :-).
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