14 DAY TRIAL // On the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LMKL) some interesting posts related to the GPL v2 and 3 licenses have been recently made by Linus Torvalds. The famous Linux developer mainly voices against FSF's GPLv3, which - according to him - features an anti-DRM language and also takes in some slippery words which do not exactly come to support the "spirit of the GPL".
While some GPLv3 fans accuse him of misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or preconceptions, Linus struggles to explain that he understood quite well FSF's message but he just can't agree on several aspects of it. He also claims that the GPL2 license serves very well its purpose and the 3d version is mainly useless.
"Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the license. I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't think so..." wrote Linus.
On the mailing list, at one point there was also made a suggestion that the Linux kernel should be dual-licensed GPLv2 and GPLv3. Mr. Torvalds answered back:
"I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about 'tivoization' (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push the GPLv3)."