[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Proposed ACPI Licensing change
    Followup to:  <astkea$6ej$>
    By author: (Linus Torvalds)
    In newsgroup:
    > 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.

    <> at work, <> in private!
    "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." <>
    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 13:31    [W:0.026 / U:8.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site