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."

Re:Ummm...

[shawn(at)fsu]

Speaking of RMS, is it just me or does the GNU /. [slashdot.org] topic icon look like it is sucking it's thumb and holding a blanket. If it is, was this a stab at RMS?

Wrong Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the more important question: What does the Koran say about the GPLv3?

Ugh... Stallman

[XMilkProject]

Stallman and his various comments have long been a subject of very akward feeling and conversation.

Virtually everyone here has a massive respect for the man's technical genius, but at the same time virtually everyone realizes he's a bit of a lunatic.

I think it would be alot easier on all of us if we just killed him.

We're meeting at the flagpole in an hour. Bring your knives, bats, and decompilers.

Re:Alan Cox's View

[Nahor]

Nope, Alan only answered to the question about being in favor of GPL v3 for Linux. The other questions were answered by Anonymous Cowards.

Peanuts

[commodoresloat]

Isn't it Linus who should be sucking his thumb and holding a blanket?