Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:43:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:43:53 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:31708 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:43:52 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:00:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds 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: 1230 Lines: 29 On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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). sounds interesting - is it difficult to enabled it, just to see how much impact it has on daily work? > 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. well, if it can be made a one-time thing, ie. something like: 'from now on if you commit in the repository and distribute the changes then all those changes and related BK metadata are licensed under the GPL', that would be less intrusive i guess? Ingo - 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/