[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> > Why would it be awkward? libgcc has the same problem, so they added this
> > paragraph:
> >
> > In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
> > Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
> > compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
> > and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
> > from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions
> > do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
> > the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
> > executable.)
> >
> > Why can't we do something similiar?
> Why does it matter?

You are avoiding my question. If something goes into the kernel, the
kernel license would be the obvious choice. Granting additional rights or
using a dual license is a relatively small problem. But you must certainly
have a reason to choose a completely different license?

bye, Roman

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:0.051 / U:3.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site