Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, still has no plans to license the Linux kernel under version three of the GNU GPL anytime soon. Torvalds, a vocal critic of GPL v3 while it was being drafted, prefers GPL v2, he told Jim Zemlin, the executive director of the Linux Foundation, Jan. 8 in the first in a series of podcasts titled 'Open Voices', which will feature the industry's top open source and Linux leaders. Torvalds also said Linux was the project that made the split clear between the religious belief in freedom advocated by the Free Software Foundation and the technical superiority that open source and Linux have always been about.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-03-20
While he does not control the kernel, his decisions hold weight in what happens to the kernel. If Linus wanted to go with the GPLv3, then it was more likely to happen. It would take someone like Linus to get permission from the other kernel developers to change the license of their code. Linus's decision makes it very unlikely that we will see the kernel being put under the GPLv3.
This does not prevent kernel developers from dual licensing their code as I understand it.
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-07-09
See Bruce Perens' comment on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=410364&cid=21955924
I think you may be wrong here, so I don't think any shame should be on Thom.
Member since:2005-07-06
Really now. I would like Mr. Bruce Perens to back up his claims. I also would like to see airborne porcines, but both are typically just as likely.
Linus could not change the kernel license whenever he pleases. If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe Mr. Torvalds himself - see for example here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/27/339
Quoted from that email message:
Quite frankly, _if_ we ever change to GPLv3, it's going to be because somebody convinces me and other copyright holders to add the "or any later license" to all files
Just because it's Mr. Perens who has an opinion doesn't mean his opinion is even remotely correct.
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-18
While it doesn't "belong to him alone" he has the ultimate word on what code is accepted into the official kernel. If Linux says no to GPLv3 code no such code will go into the official kernel.
Member since:2005-07-06
While it doesn't "belong to him alone" he has the ultimate word on what code is accepted into the official kernel. If Linux says no to GPLv3 code no such code will go into the official kernel. "
That's true and that's how it should be - Linus' opinion rightfully carries tremendous weight. But that wasn't what I argued. I argued that Linus cannot change the kernel license all by himself - or at least not without rewriting all of the code to which the original authors hold the copyright.
But apparently stating this rubs people the wrong way and causes relentless downmodding shrugs
Member since:
2005-07-06
The headline for this story is very, very misleading. |Shame on you, Thom.
Linus may (and does - he's a very opinionated fellow and has earned the right to be so) believe and say what he damn well pleases, but one thing he cannot do is to decide the kernel license since the kernel does not belong to him alone, but each piece of it to all the contributors to that piece.
Please let's not be lazy just use the first sentence of an article as its title, shall we? It may well be (as is the case here) that the author was unable to understand the concept of a community license.