Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at
Fri Sep 22 18:52:55 UTC 2006

Thanks for CCing the reply to discussion@, didn't notice that you
forgot to CC to.

   >   However, if the Linux Kernel could use the GPLv3 would be
   >   better than, as they say, a "Balkanisation of the entire [snip]
   >   Universe upon which we rely".
   > Those who wish to do evil, or allow evil, will always think
   > lesser about our goals.
   >   Or do you think that if the Linux Kernel 'll stay with GPLv2
   >   this won't be a problem ???
   > Unless you get agreement from anyone who has ever contributed a
   > legally significant amount of code to Linux, then Linux will stay
   > as GPLv2 only.

   Then, you think that the "Balkanisation menace" is only smelly FUD,


   and that GPLv2 and v3 can cohesist without problems ???

Yes.  GPLv2-only has co-existed with GPL incompatible licenses for a
long time, so why not here.  The GPLv2-and-later can easily co-exist
without any problems too.

   I'm not an expert, but we can have a GNU toolchain v3 and a Kernel
   v2 ???

Sure, why not.  The BSD folks had a GPL incompatible license, and used
GCC all within all known legal bounderies.

More information about the Discussion mailing list