Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:42:27 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 |
| |
Kai Germaschewski wrote: > > Correct me, IANAL, but my understanding is that klibc will be dual > GPL/<whatever it is now> by inclusion into the kernel tree, after all the > whole purpose is to provide an initramfs which will be linked into vmlinux > (Yes, linked not in the normal sense, but still). >
I don't actually think dual licensing is necessary, since the new BSD/MIT license is generally considered to be GPL-compatible (i.e. it grants all the rights the GPL does.) The dual license concept dates back to the "old BSD" license, which definitely was *not* GPL-compatible.
> So it'd rather be similar to some parts of the kernel which are already > dual licensed (parts of ACPI I think being the latest example), and > patches will be assumed to be contributed under that dual license, unless > explicitly stated otherwise.
This is pretty much it, except I believe explicit dual licensing is superfluous. If anyone has evidence to the contrary please let me know.
-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/
| |