Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

[jimmy bahuleyan <knight.camelot@gmail.com>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Here's an idea that just occurred to me, after all the discussions
> about motivations, tit-for-tat, authors' wishes and all.
> 
> If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with
> code under GPLv2, this wouldn't be enough for GPLv3 projects to use
> Linux code, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux code to use GPLv3
> projects.  That's because GPLv2 would still demand all code to be
> licensed under GPLv2, and GPLv3 wouldn't permit this.
> 
> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
> compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
> with code under GPLv3 (or even GPLv3+, constrained by some condition
> if you will), then:
> 

There, that right there, wouldn't it again require a 'nod' from all
those who have contributed to the kernel (because at the time they did,
the license was GPLv2 without any additions)?

-jb
-- 
Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.