Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:44:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:44:08 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:55302 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:44:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:52:16 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Roman Zippel cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Greg KH , Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 In-Reply-To: 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: 1296 Lines: 34 On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Roman Zippel wrote: > > Could you please repeat your reasoning? I must have missed something. The reasoning is very simple: - klibc is small. It would be pointless to make it a shared library, because the infrastructure to do so and the indirection required would likely be bigger than klibc itself (unless klibc is eventually bloated up) - klibc is potentially useful outside just standard kernel initrd images, and in fact for development it is nice to use it that way. Put the two together, and the GPL really doesn't look like a very good license for klibc. Yeah, you can disagree about what the actual exceptions are, but clearly there has to be _some_ exception to the license. Also, since the kernel GPL thing doesn't taint user space apps (very much documented since day 1), there really isn't any _reason_ to use the GPL in the first place. klibc wouldn't ever get linked into the kernel, only into apps. As such, and since Peter is the main author, I don't see your argument, Roman. Linus - 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/