Should we drop the "or later" after GPLv2?

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Wed Aug 23 21:27:23 UTC 2006


On Saturday 19 August 2006 9:10 am, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:30:34 -0400
> Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> 
> > Bernhard and Erik: what do you think about dropping the "or later"
> > from the BusyBox license and going to straight v2?
> 
> If being able to merge code from other projects is a big priority then
> the conservative thing to do would be to stick with GPLv2 or later for
> 12 months or so and see how well the GPLv3 is accepted.

Sticking with or later doesn't let us merge v3-only code.  It can't be used 
under the terms of GPLv2.
 
> The decision does have long term implications for the project, so i
> dont think its something we should rush into.

Agreed.

> Personally i dont have a problem with GPLv3 draft is ive read about it
> so far, if it makes it easier to crack down on corporate freeloaders
> like tivo then its a good thing.

I suppose I should bounce this question off the SFLC.  The limiting factor on 
the hall of shame was a lack of resources to follow up, not any failing of 
GPLv2.

> Even if the GPLv3 turned out to be everything Linus ever wanted the
> Linux kernel could never move to it because its practically impossible
> to get everyone who has contributed to it to agree to anything.
> 
> If we remove the (or later) clause like Linux did, then it has similar
> implications for us in the future.

Do you think the Linux kernel is going to become obsolete in the next 10 
years?  Do you think the license on the Linux kernel is going to become 
obsolete?  Do you think having the same license as the Linux kernel is going 
to be a bad thing?

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list