Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 8 Mar 2003 02:49:11 +0100 (CET) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 |
| |
Hi,
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, David Lang wrote:
> The reason he gave back when the discussion was first started (months ago) > was that klibc is designed to be directly linked into programs, and it was > felt that this would not be possible with the GPL. In fact klibc was > adopted instead of dietlibc speceificly BECOUSE of the license.
There is still the possibility to support multiple libc implementation, if you don't like dietlibc, you're still free to use klibc.
> while you could add an additional clause to the GPL to allow it to be > linked into programs directly the I seriously doubt if the self appointed > 'GPL police' would notice the issue and would expect that fears on the > subject would limit it's use.
Could we at least try to not let this degenerate into a flamewar? Thanks.
bye, Roman
- 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/
| |