Re: about GNU Hurd

[Marco Gerards]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> 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.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Thanks,
Marco