Unlikely.
And a 2.1 patch would not be allowed to live with a 2.0 source - if the 2.1 adds restrictions, ie: no patent deal unless they cover everyone, which is for the lawyers and judges to deal with.
Change GPL retroactively?
- (andread)
- (19)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 02:11:47 PM EST
Nothing retroactive about it
- (crazy)
- (3)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 02:40:27 PM EST
Re: Nothing retroactive about it
- (andread)
- (2)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 03:13:57 PM EST
Define your goal and possible usage
-NT
- (crazy)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 03:16:01 PM EST
Sure you can. For *your* work, *you* can...
- (CRConrad)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 03:38:39 PM EST
Nope.
- (folkert)
- (13)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 04:06:01 PM EST
Nope to you
- (crazy)
- (12)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 04:17:16 PM EST
I disagree.
- (folkert)
- (11)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 05:46:17 PM EST
Yes and no
- (crazy)
- (10)
- Nov. 28, 2006, 07:37:41 PM EST
You think Linus will accept patches under anything but 2.0?
-NT
- (CRConrad)
- (1)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 03:09:55 AM EST
Dunno
- (crazy)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 06:57:32 AM EST
There is no way that the Linux KERNEL will ever be...
- (folkert)
- (7)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 04:13:17 AM EST
But the issue is not just the kernel
- (crazy)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 07:00:18 AM EST
Why would anyone fork GCC, etc? Who?
- (CRConrad)
- (5)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 07:29:49 AM EST
egcs
-NT
- (altmann)
- (4)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 01:00:20 PM EST
That was neither Novell nor Linus rabid 2.0 gang, was it?
-NT
- (CRConrad)
- (3)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 03:25:39 PM EST
Didn't that get un-forked, too?
-NT
- (pwhysall)
- (2)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 04:09:00 PM EST
Yup - but not over license issues
- (crazy)
- (1)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 04:43:22 PM EST
Why - is Amazon in the business of *distributing gcc*?
- (CRConrad)
- Nov. 30, 2006, 06:29:13 AM EST
Thanks Gentlemen
- (andread)
- Nov. 29, 2006, 09:25:18 AM EST