Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:14:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:14:36 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:9233 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:14:35 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:24:51 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Linus Torvalds cc: "David S. Miller" , , , , , 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: 1161 Lines: 27 Hi, On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The thing is, this discussion has _not_ been exactly neutral. You may have > said "could" or "might" or whatever, but clearly people are trying to > pressure hpa into going to GPL. It's the whole tone of the thread. > > Or would you disagree with that? Um, I have to. What I was trying to is to get a clear answer, why he does not want a different license. All arguments I heard so far don't speak against a libgcc like license. I only want to know whether there is an alternative solution he might also be comfortable with. I don't want to pressure him into anything, I only sort of expect, if someone makes a decision, which might have farreaching consequences, that he is able to explain and defend his decision. All I want is that people sometimes think what consequences their action might have. This is the point I'm missing here a bit. 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/