Could Linux Still Go GPL3?

turnitover writes "Even though Linus has said 'The Linux kernel has always been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid,' LinuxWatch is reporting that Richard Stallman has said it's ultimately up to the developers. And those on the LKML (Linux Kernel Mailing List) are going back and forth about whether to move to GPL3. The sticking point, not surprisingly, is the issue of DRM." In response to the DRM issue Linus wrote: "I personally think that the anti-DRM clause is much more sensible in the context of the Creative Commons licenses, than in software licenses. If you create valuable and useful content that other people want to be able to use (catchy tunes, funny animation, good icons), I would suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any content-protection schemes."

Comments

First Ambiguous Response

[Mancat]

Sure, I suppose Linux could move to the GPL3. I'm not really sure of the consequences, though. I'm sure it wouldn't be a big deal, but I may be wrong. I don't really care either way.

er, wha??

[corbettw]

Nothing else has ever been valid,' LinuxWatch is reporting that Richard Stallman has said it's ultimately up to the developers.

Stallman couldn't be more wrong if he said whether Linux goes to GPLv3 is ultimately up to him (which might be his next press release, I don't know). Linus Torvalds holds the trademark for Linux, he's the one in charge of the project, in what way, shape, or form could anyone else force the project to go to a new license? Maybe his corporate masters could, but last I checked OSDL doesn't seem to much care about exercising that kind of control (and if they did, it's not like he couldn't get a new job in seconds).

Maybe someone can explain Stallman's "reasoning", but really, this just seems like more evidence that the man has completely lost touch with reality.