Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Proposed ACPI Licensing change | Date | 9 Dec 2002 11:39:56 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <astkea$6ej$1@penguin.transmeta.com> By author: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > In fact, I don't think I'd even merge a patch where the submitter tried > to limit dual-license code to a simgle license (it might happen with > some non-maintained stuff where the original source of the dual license > is gone, but if somebody tried to send me an ACPI patch that said "this > is GPL only", then I just wouldn't take it). > > So yes, dual-license code can become GPL-only, but not in _my_ tree. >
This is good. I'd like to keep klibc under a BSD/GPL license because some people (e.g. Al Viro) have issued concerns about making a nondynamic user-space library GPL or LGPL, and I pretty much agree with their concerns. The current klibc tarball isn't completely "untainted", since it contains "fixed"/modified kernel headers in a few places, but I'm hoping to migrate those changes back into the kernel headers proper once the merge is done.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |