Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:27:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:27:53 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.141]:22022 "EHLO smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:27:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:38:12 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: "H. Peter Anvin" cc: Russell King , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 In-Reply-To: <3E692EE4.9020905@zytor.com> Message-ID: References:

<20030307233916.Q17492@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <3E692EE4.9020905@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: 1003 Lines: 25 Hi, On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Right, of course. However, the first step (which Greg has accomplished) > is to get klibc merged into the kernel build. We already have ipconfig > and mount-nfs binaries which compile against klibc; now we need to > integrate them so they can pick up the ip= and nfsroot= options and do > the right thing in userspace. But before it's actually merged, I would slowly really like to know the reasoning for license. You completely avoid that question and that makes me nervous. Why did you choose this license over any GPL variant? We could as well integrate dietlibc and if anyone has a problem with it, he can still choose your klibc. Why should I contribute to klibc instead of dietlibc? 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/