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

From: Marc Perkel
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 13:22:48 EST

--- Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxx>

> 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.

Would it still be a problem if the licenses were
exactly the same?

Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
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