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

[Simon Huggins]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:18:37PM +0100, Steve 'Dobbo' Dobson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:10:48PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > Besides, Torvalds isn't too keen on GPLv3. But then again, he's not 
> > really into the "free software" thing - he's much more of a pragmatist.
> 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?

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

Simon.

-- 
[ "Abandon shop! Abandon shop! This is not a daffodil!" - Holly        ]
-------------- 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/20070710/227cf349/attachment.pgp