Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

["debian developer" <debiandev@gmail.com>]

On 6/15/07, Kevin Bowling <lkml@kev009.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <mperkel@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate
> > > and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is
> > > nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe
> > > that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved.
> > >
> > > So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is
> > > unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license and
> > > call it the Linux Kernel License or LKL for short. So
> > > LKL could equal GPL2.
> >
> > It seems it would require agreement by all copyright holders, much
> > like the v2->v3 transition would do. If it makes the 2->3 transition
> > unfeasible, the same may apply here.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the name simply be
> changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 vs GPL3.  Same
> verbiage, different name.  If these FSF loonies keep cutting into our
> corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to agree :-).

Even if it's just a name change, it will be a different license and requires the
agreement of all authors. It's much easier( not that we want to) to go
to GPLv3 than
go to LKL.