Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:42 David Schwartz wrote:
> I don't know who you are talking to or what you are talking about. I
> haven't seen anybody doing what you claim in this thread or anywhere else
> and I certainly am not.

I'm asking what is the _point_ of the discussion?

Linux, the project, is available under GPLv2 only.   It is not available under 
GPLv3, and its maintainers (both Linus, his lieutenants, and numerous other 
contributors) have expressed an explicit desire NOT to license it as such.

So what are the people talking about GPLv3 trying to accomplish?  Are they:

A) Trying to unanimously change the mind of Linus, his lieutentants, and all 
the other contributors who have spoken up in favor of GPLv2 only, so that 
future versions of Linux grew a new license?  (Doesn't matter if this new 
license is GPlv3, MPL, or BSD.  It's a new license Linux is not currently 
distributed under.  Bits of Linux are separately distributed under other 
licenses such as BSD, but Linux is not and won't be any time soon.)

B) Proposing the creation of a fork of Linux which identifies and replaces all 
the code that can't be licensed under GPLv3?

C) Moving to another codebase (Solaris?  The Hurd) and trying to identify 
Linux code that can be ported to that other OS under another license?

D) Blowing smoke to no actual purpose?

Right now, it's looking like D.  Is there an E that I'm not seeing?

Rob