Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:38:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:38:46 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]:13328 "EHLO smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:38:44 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 02:49:11 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: David Lang cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Russell King , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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: 1055 Lines: 26 Hi, On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, David Lang wrote: > The reason he gave back when the discussion was first started (months ago) > was that klibc is designed to be directly linked into programs, and it was > felt that this would not be possible with the GPL. In fact klibc was > adopted instead of dietlibc speceificly BECOUSE of the license. There is still the possibility to support multiple libc implementation, if you don't like dietlibc, you're still free to use klibc. > while you could add an additional clause to the GPL to allow it to be > linked into programs directly the I seriously doubt if the self appointed > 'GPL police' would notice the issue and would expect that fears on the > subject would limit it's use. Could we at least try to not let this degenerate into a flamewar? Thanks. 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/