[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2

On 7 Mar 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 18:26, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > This is simply not true, if the usage terms are clearly defined in
> > advance, we can easily easily ignore the trolls. Did anyone ever complain
> > about the libgcc license? I don't think your fear is justified.
> I agree with Roman, I see no reason why the libgcc
> license could not be used.

Guys, which part of "he who writes the code gets to choose the license"
do you not _get_?

I find few things more morally offensive than whiners who whine about
other peoples choice of license.

I found it totally inappropriate when some of the crazier BSD guys were
whining about the use of the GPL in Linux for _years_. They seem to
finally have shut up lately, or maybe I've just gotten sufficiently good
at ignoring them.

But I find it _equally_ offensive when somebody whines the other way. I
can understand it from rms, if only because I _expect_ it. But why the
hell people who didn't actually DO anything whine about Peter's choice of
license FOR THE CODE HE WROTE, I don't see.

This is the "shut up and put up" philosophy of software licensing. Either
you do the work, or you sit quietly and watch others do it. If you do the
work, you get to impact the license. If you don't, you had better SHUT THE

Btw, the same goes for every single BK whiner out there.

Linus "hotbutton" Torvalds

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:0.074 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site