Should we drop the "or later" after GPLv2?

Glenn L McGrath bug1 at ihug.co.nz
Thu Aug 24 00:27:17 UTC 2006


On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:27:23 -0400
Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:

> On Saturday 19 August 2006 9:10 am, Glenn L McGrath wrote:

> > 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?

All im saying that a future licence may be better than the current one,
and for practical reasons linux (kernel) is locked out of using that
future license.

Its not just about GPLv3 either, in theory there may be legal reasons
why a GPLv4 is desired.



Glenn



More information about the busybox mailing list