[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2

    On 7 Mar 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
    > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 18:26, Roman Zippel wrote:
    > > This is simply not true, if the usage terms are clearly defined in
    > > advance, we can easily easily ignore the trolls. Did anyone ever complain
    > > about the libgcc license? I don't think your fear is justified.
    > I agree with Roman, I see no reason why the libgcc
    > license could not be used.

    Guys, which part of "he who writes the code gets to choose the license"
    do you not _get_?

    I find few things more morally offensive than whiners who whine about
    other peoples choice of license.

    I found it totally inappropriate when some of the crazier BSD guys were
    whining about the use of the GPL in Linux for _years_. They seem to
    finally have shut up lately, or maybe I've just gotten sufficiently good
    at ignoring them.

    But I find it _equally_ offensive when somebody whines the other way. I
    can understand it from rms, if only because I _expect_ it. But why the
    hell people who didn't actually DO anything whine about Peter's choice of
    license FOR THE CODE HE WROTE, I don't see.

    This is the "shut up and put up" philosophy of software licensing. Either
    you do the work, or you sit quietly and watch others do it. If you do the
    work, you get to impact the license. If you don't, you had better SHUT THE
    F*CK UP!

    Btw, the same goes for every single BK whiner out there.

    Linus "hotbutton" Torvalds

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.019 / U:29.996 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site