Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:55:27 +0100 (CET) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 |
| |
Hi,
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 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/
| |