Will linux kernel move to GPL 3?

The Linux kernel mailing list started discussing about adopting the GPL3. Leading Linux developers are divided on whether Linux kernel should use the GNU General Public License version 3 or not. The discussion is started although the GPL3 is only a draft. The final version should be released in 2007.

Here are the main thoughts from some developers:

Jeff V. Merkey: The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on whether Linux will move to GPL3? I support adoption

Stephen Hemminger: No consensus exists, and it would require agreement from all the copyright holders.

Patrick McLean: I don't think the kernel is going to move to v3, it's licensed specifically as v2, this is from the top of COPYING. Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.

Alan Cox: It may well move to v3, or bits of it may well do but it is rather early to speculate.
About obtain permission from copyright holders: It isn't clear that this will be a problem. Very few people specifically put their code v2 only, and Linus edit of the top copying file was not done with permission of other copyright holders anyway so really only affects his code if it is valid at all. What finally happens is going to depend almost entirely on whether the GPL v3 is a sane license or not and on consensus, and it is *way* too early to figure that out.

Jeff V. Merkey: GPL2 is fine if the kernel stays that way for my projects. moving forward, the patent retaliation clause is a great idea.

Alexander Shishckin: GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real software developers and produce real world software. Someone should probably put an end to these miserable efforts.

Chase Venters: Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies? Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is spin it into silly conspiracies?
Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant things? Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also Stallman's license?
I'm not going to trumpet around in 'patriotic' support of Stallman for too long, but if you're going to go on a Stallman/GPL bashing tirade, try having some real reasons instead of moaning like a rock in the wind.
As for the implicit allegation that he's wrong for not accepting the "company's" way of doing thing, last I checked, most of this 'free software' stuff was started and written by people as a hobby, for themselves and their users -- not for companies. It just happens that Stallman's license allows business and industry to harmonize.