Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:27:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:27:13 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:15377 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:27:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:37:37 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: "H. Peter Anvin" cc: Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 In-Reply-To: <3E68A1F3.2020006@zytor.com> Message-ID: References: <20030307001655.GB13766@kroah.com> <3E67F03F.2070902@zytor.com> <3E67F76E.4050709@zytor.com> <3E68A1F3.2020006@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: 980 Lines: 24 Hi, On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, H. Peter Anvin 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. Could you please repeat your reasoning? I must have missed something. So far I'm still trying to understand your choice and I haven't rejected or accepted anything yet. So far I also tried to be careful not to give any judgement, you're interpreting something into my words, I didn't intend to say. 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/