Well, and Linus would never agree to move to the GPLv3 even if that were an option (assuming that copyright were assigned to him or an organization he had a controlling voice in). In his opinion, the GPLv2 is the perfect license, and he doesn't like the additional restrictions imposed by the GPLv3.
I don't necessarily agree with him, but based on his influence in the kernel community, it would be pretty hard to change the license over his objections.
Looking at the opinions of specific individuals is kind of missing the point. Theo de Raadt and Bill Gates don't much care for GPLv3 either.
Ask it a different way: How many popular GNU/Linux distributions have zero GPLv3 binaries in them? I expect Linus has GPLv3 software on his own machine.
Theo de Raadt and Bill Gates don't much care for GPLv3
either.
Right, and so like Linus and the Linux kernel, that's why they don't ship code under the GPLv3.
I'm sure Linus does have GPLv3 running on his machine. He doesn't mind using the license, as it doesn't constrain him as a user in any way that he objects to. But he doesn't ship his own software under that license.
I wasn't saying anything about the relevance of his opinion, to anything other than the kernel license himself. You had asserted that the kernel hadn't moved to the GPLv3 because of lack of copyright assignment; and I was just pointing out that in addition to that, the lead developer of the kernel personally dislikes the GPLv3, so even if he had the ability to change license, he probably would not have.
Personally, I'm pretty happy with the GPLv3. I wish more developers would release code under it, instead of more liberal licenses, to help defeat things that I find unpleasant like Tivoization and software patents. But not everyone shares my opinion, and Linus's opinion carries a lot more weight than mine as the leader of the kernel project.
I don't necessarily agree with him, but based on his influence in the kernel community, it would be pretty hard to change the license over his objections.