Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil
Permalink for comment 429236
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-06-09
It isn't quite that simple...
Do you not understand that it is a practical *impossibility* to change the license for the linux kernel?
Once you get your head around that, there is only one option when it comes to getting anything inside the kernel - it must be compatible with the kernel license.
Linus already commented a long time ago on this with respect to changing the kernel license to GPLv3, and those same arguments would only be that much stronger with respect to any other license.
I'm not saying this means that anyone else *should* change their license, I'm just saying that arguing that the license for the linux kernel could be changed is just plain ignorant.