lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2
    Roman Zippel wrote:
    >
    > But before it's actually merged, I would slowly really like to know the
    > reasoning for license. You completely avoid that question and that makes
    > me nervous.
    >

    Actually I don't, you just don't like to hear the answer. I believe I
    have stated and restated this several times already.

    >
    > Why did you choose this license over any GPL variant?
    > We could as well integrate dietlibc and if anyone has a problem with it,
    > he can still choose your klibc.
    > Why should I contribute to klibc instead of dietlibc?
    >

    One more time, with feeling...

    a) I, as well as the other early userspace developers, feel that the
    advantages of allowing linking nonfree applications outweigh the
    disadvantages.

    b) I will personally go batty if I ever have to create yet another
    implementation of printf() and the few other things in klibc that is
    anything other than a thin shim over the kernel interface. The bottom
    line is that klibc is so Linux-specific, that the only way someone would
    "steal" code from it is because they want a specific subroutine
    somewhere, and as far as I'm concerned, they can have it, and I don't
    care in the slightest for what project.

    -hpa


    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.021 / U:30.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site