2007/8/1, Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Richard, > > > Linux has no choice but to stick with GPLv2 as they removed the `or any > > later version' clause, and therefore to change the license to GPLv3 > > would require the consent of all the copyright holders. But to be honest > > the license doesn't matter that much, as long as it is free. > > > > Our lawyers think that they can relicense Linux if they want to. > > It is important to do this, to protect the users from tivoization. > > How would that work? I really hope you can explain this in more > detail. What you are saying goes against what my common sense tells > me and what people in general think about this issue. > > Some GNU projects (like the Hurd, GNU Mach and GRUB Legacy) use Linux > code and many people (including GNU maintainers) think these projects > have to stick to using the GPLv2. Sometimes we use code from other > projects than Linux that has the same problem (being GPLv2 only), so > our projects can't switch to the GPLv3, unless the code can be > relicensed like you mentioned.
It should be read: "Our lawyers think that they [the Linux developers] can relicense Linux if they want to". But unfortunately they don't want to. So up to now there is no chance in this sense.
