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

I've got a question

[RedNovember]

Since when the fuck does RMS get a say in Linus' kernel? So he says it's up to the developers. That doesn't mean that it is. It's up to the Linus, not the developers, no matter what RMS says. It's not his kernel to license.

Not exactly

[winkydink]

It might be "up to the developers" to make a GPL3 operating system that is forked from the current Linux kernel, but it won't be called Linux as Linus owns that trademark and Linus says no to GPL3. Perhaps this is what Stallman is ultimately after. He can finally have a GNU operating system without hyphens or slashes.

Stallman: a shrill voice in the wilderness.