Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:32:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:32:43 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:30733 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:32:42 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 12:39:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Ingo Molnar cc: Russell King , "David S. Miller" , Alan Cox , Larry McVoy , Ulrich Drepper , , Subject: Re: BK MetaData License Problem? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1204 Lines: 28 [ Different issue, and slightly off-topic ] On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > until now the Linux kernel tree was distributed in a tarball that had a > nice COPYING file in a very prominent spot. With BK the situation is > different - and like i said in previous mails it's not BK's "fault", but > BK's "effect" - and it's a situation that needs to be remedied, right? If this is a concern, it actually appears that BK has the capability to "enforce" a license, in that I coul dmake BK aware of the GPL and that would cause BK to pop up a window saying "Do you agree to this license" before the first check-in by a person (the same way it asked you whether you wanted to allow openlogging). Do people feel that would be a good idea? I actually dismissed it when Larry talked about it, because I felt people might take it as another "too much BK in your face", even though the license would be the _Linux_ license, not the BK one. Linus - 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/