Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 20:33:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 20:33:59 -0500 Received: from pc1-cwma1-5-cust42.swan.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.120.42]:44211 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 20:33:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Proposed ACPI Licensing change From: Alan Cox To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: acpi-devel@sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 07 Dec 2002 02:16:53 +0000 Message-Id: <1039227413.25062.6.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1121 Lines: 25 On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 00:10, Grover, Andrew wrote: > In order to solve this, we are considering releasing the Linux version of > the interpreter under a dual license. This would allow direct incorporation > of changes. Any patches submitted against the ACPI core code would > implicitly be allowed to be used by us in a non-GPL context. This is already > done elsewhere in the Linux kernel source by the PCMCIA code, for example. I think this is an extremely good idea. I certainly would have no problem contributing cleanup/fixes to the project under those terms. And if I did something large and mega cool with ACPI I can still GPL it only and you can still ignore it 8) There is a tradition of contributing patches back under the license the project you are contributing to used (and ACPI is certainly big enough to be 'a project' not just a patch) Suits me fine Alan - 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/