Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262031AbUC1AoY (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:44:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262014AbUC1AoY (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:44:24 -0500 Received: from islay.mach.uni-karlsruhe.de ([129.13.162.92]:21688 "EHLO mailout.schmorp.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262035AbUC1AoR (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:44:17 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:43:41 +0100 From: Marc Lehmann To: Pavel Machek Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Pavel Machek , Arjan van de Ven , Cameron Patrick , Michael Frank , Software Suspend - Mailing Lists , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [Swsusp-devel] lzf license Message-ID: <20040328004341.GA9258@schmorp.de> Mail-Followup-To: Pavel Machek , Nigel Cunningham , Pavel Machek , Arjan van de Ven , Cameron Patrick , Michael Frank , Software Suspend - Mailing Lists , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20040322182121.GA21521@schmorp.de> <1080166848.2628.3.camel@calvin.wpcb.org.au> <20040325114736.GA300@elf.ucw.cz> <20040322094053.GO16890@patrick.wattle.id.au> <1079948988.5296.8.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20040322182121.GA21521@schmorp.de> <1080166848.2628.3.camel@calvin.wpcb.org.au> <20040325142654.GA11633@schmorp.de> <20040325145639.GH1505@openzaurus.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040325145639.GH1505@openzaurus.ucw.cz> X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.4.24 (root@cerebro) (gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2012 Lines: 40 On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:56:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > If there are problems with that, I'd like to hear. I see no point in > > keeping the code out just because it isn't gpl, but I don't see a point > > in making the original distribution dual licensed for no reason. (and, as > > I said, there is lots of bsd-derived code in the kernel and I am _really_ > > keen on getting rid of any problems that forbid relicensing). > > So if Nigel takes the BSD license out and replaces it with GPL, > thats okay with you? Yes. I believe this was always possible, and should now be rather explicit with the changes I made. However, I do not endorse it nor can I see why this should be necessary, as other parts of the kernel are distributed with dual licensing left intact, and I don't see why lzf is special. But, again, relicensing is now explicitly allowed, I am aware of the fact that this means that one can replace the license with GPL-only and explicitly allow this happen with or without my consent. This was a conscious decision etc.. etc.. :) I hope it'sclear now that relicensing can happen anytime if necessary, regardless of what my opinion on this is. I also don't need any further explanations (unless you want to) and would hope that this issue is now solved and fixing/merging plans can now continue. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - 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/