Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S261320AbTCGBNU>; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:13:20 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261322AbTCGBNU>; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:13:20 -0500
Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.137]:20753 "EHLO
	smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S261320AbTCGBNR>; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:13:17 -0500
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:23:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
X-X-Sender: roman@serv
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
       <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2
In-Reply-To: <3E67F03F.2070902@zytor.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303070215490.32518-100000@serv>
References: <20030307001655.GB13766@kroah.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303070156430.32518-100000@serv>
 <3E67F03F.2070902@zytor.com>
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: 1553
Lines: 40

Hi,

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Actually, it's the MIT license, which differs from the (new) BSD license
> only in the no-endorsement clause, which seemed superfluous.
> 
> It was chosen because klibc is a non-dynamic library, and it would
> otherwise be extremely awkward to link proprietary code against it if
> someone would like to do so.

Why would it be awkward? libgcc has the same problem, so they added this 
paragraph:

In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
from the use of this file.  (The General Public License restrictions
do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
executable.)

Why can't we do something similiar?

>  Furthermore, I'm the author of most of the
> code in there, and if someone really wants to rip it off it's not a huge
> deal to me.

If it becomes part of the kernel (and a core part, not just some driver), 
it would be awkward to have a completely different license, so this should 
not be done without a very good reason.

bye, Roman

-
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/