I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the
disaster that were the earlier drafts.
I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.
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
In a follow-on message, Torvalds commented on the possibility of Sun licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3:
Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
_may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as
v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two
kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at
least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don't really see a reason at
I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn't really expect them to
open-source Java either(*), so it's not like I'm infallible in my
(*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I
walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their
horrible previous Java license.