[Sussex] So... GPL v3, eh?

[Steve 'Dobbo' Dobson]

Simon

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:09:07PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:18:37PM +0100, Steve 'Dobbo' Dobson wrote:
> > I think I heard that (in principal) he was prepared to go to GPLv3, but as
> > you say, there is that whole GPLv2 only bit and having to get permission 
> > from every kernel developer (or re-write their contributions where permission
> > can't be obtained or isn't given).
> 
> Do you have a source for that?

I think I read it on Groklaw, but I don't have anything bookmarked.
 
> There are (old) posts/news articles like
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
> http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/03/10/torvalds_gpl_drm/
> that would contradict it for instance.
> 
> http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6171300-7.html
> favours your argument but the "tivoization" bits haven't gone away have
> they?
> 
> More recently
> http://www.linux.com/feature/114336

That is certainly more resent than my memory of a different statement and
not altogether different.  He like the latter versions that the earlier
ones and it's against going to it if a good reason can be found - which is
kinda what I remember - not against going to it in principal.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20070710/9d643a39/attachment.pgp