[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible wrote:
> Sure there is: To the extent that there is a real license problem,
> work with the copyright owner(s) for the files and binary blobs to
> resolve the problem. [...]

Yes, of course that would be fine. I started with the implicit
assumption that the license could not change, sorry.

This might open another can of worms however. Once you get a binary blob
into the kernel and you know that it really is code for an embedded
microprocessor or such, what is the "preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it"? Wouldn't that be source code in whatever
language that blob is written in? Wouldn't that also require a toolchain
to build it? MY opinion is that it' much better to get it out of the
kernel anyway.

> Contrary to your (and SCO's) allegations, kernel gatekeepers
> generally exercise care with respect to new contributions.

I did not allege anything like that. I never doubted that Linus and most
other maintainers do, in fact, understand legal things quite well,
contrary to what SCO said or implied several times.

Ciao, Flavio

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 14:03    [W:0.073 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site