Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS

Posted Jun 13, 2007 9:37 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
In reply to: Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS by forthy
Parent article: Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS

That kind of compatibility is not much help, unless all of the kernel is licensed as "v2 or later". As long as there is a single file licensed under "v2 only", it becomes impossible to link with a single "v3 only" file.

Meanwhile, relicensing all files under a "v2 or later" license might seem to be a necessary first step to a GPLv3 kernel. But given Linus' reluctance to blanket license, I would rather expect a "dual v2-v3" license, if the migration is to be done at all.

to post comments

Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS

Posted Jun 13, 2007 13:09 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (3 responses)

Maaaybe there was a good reason why the FSF recommended the use of "v2 or later" licensing. Then you basically leave the choice to the user. I never understood what Linus didn't like about that, except some unspecified fear of the FSF, which would be not only ridicolous but also unfortunate.

Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS

Posted Jun 13, 2007 13:36 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (1 responses)

It is not so unreasonable: Linus said:

How can you _ever_ sign anything sight unseen? That's just stupid, and that's totally regardless of any worries about the FSF.

Said that way, it looks like the correct thing to do. However, given that (as you say) "v2 or later" licensing gives the choice to the user, I'm not particularly worried about misuse.

Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS

Posted Jun 13, 2007 21:56 UTC (Wed) by notamisfit (guest, #40886) [Link]

It creates the possibility that code created in a downstream work may not be usable upstream. Linus has put his cards on the table in the past; he wants code back.

Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS

Posted Jun 14, 2007 1:59 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]

Instead of "ridiculous and unfortunate" I would say "justified by current events."