mrchocky: "I watch Linux development very closely, and I'm certain that's not the case."
Indeed. Relicensing Linux might now be conceivable (thanks to the auditing which followed the SCO charade), but isn't a particularly likely event. Comments from prominent kernel developers have mostly been posturing and/or misrepresentation of the actual GPL 3 content, but I doubt that they're diverting anyone's time away from technical matters.
mrchocky: "GPL might well be an excellent choice for parts RISC OS. But note that I was very careful in my wording and said "GPL-compatible"."
Moreover, a dual-licensing arrangement where the GPL is offered alongside the "proprietary licence for paranoid companies" would present a superior solution to that proposed. Nobody is really suggesting that the GPL would placate those paranoid companies, so stating the situation as the GPL alone vs. the RISC OS "Open" combo (as druck does above) really adds no insight to the discussion. All I stated in the comments to the original article was that for the stated aims of RISC OS "Open", the GPL would be superior to their "in due course" licence for the reasons given by mrchocky in that same comment thread (and alluded to above).