Re: about GNU Hurd

[Pierluca Masala]

2007/8/1, Marco Gerards <address@hidden>:
> 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.


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.