Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:51:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:51:28 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:59404 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:51:27 -0500 Message-ID: <3DF1C643.5070900@pobox.com> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 04:58:27 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021202 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Grover, Andrew" CC: acpi-devel@sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Proposed ACPI Licensing change References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 909 Lines: 25 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 great. Since pcmcia already set an example with their license, I think it's a great model to follow. I also echo other comments to choose an already-known license like the MPL or BSD (etc.) so that lawyers don't have extra work ;-) Jeff - 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/