Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:22:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:22:36 -0500 Received: from chaos.physics.uiowa.edu ([128.255.34.189]:5013 "EHLO chaos.physics.uiowa.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:22:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:33:00 -0600 (CST) From: Kai Germaschewski X-X-Sender: kai@chaos.physics.uiowa.edu To: "H. Peter Anvin" cc: Roman Zippel , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 In-Reply-To: <3E68A1F3.2020006@zytor.com> 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: 1224 Lines: 32 On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Roman Zippel wrote: > > > > You are avoiding my question. If something goes into the kernel, the > > kernel license would be the obvious choice. Granting additional rights or > > using a dual license is a relatively small problem. But you must certainly > > have a reason to choose a completely different license? > > > > I gave my reason. You chose not to accept it, but that's not my problem. Correct me, IANAL, but my understanding is that klibc will be dual GPL/ by inclusion into the kernel tree, after all the whole purpose is to provide an initramfs which will be linked into vmlinux (Yes, linked not in the normal sense, but still). So it'd rather be similar to some parts of the kernel which are already dual licensed (parts of ACPI I think being the latest example), and patches will be assumed to be contributed under that dual license, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Or not? --Kai - 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/