Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755776AbZCXXjV (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:39:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754555AbZCXXjK (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:39:10 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:34847 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755446AbZCXXjI convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:39:08 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=uol/78w/hh7EspEfu4ohPvBU//IaTK3gxPubUT3FcadOjloeYUMYZpRuP2g9xtu/IV pKkLc8rXWcnXdPSgmqg55iC7Obz1FAP2TN3K4Wd49EpxbRAnlQOPVLO/2YxegHU/mQFw Y1Fbvx7Ag+Hp0KYnyTptTuDqJ3Ys76TMaP+8Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <49C96978.6050904@zytor.com> References: <20090321111520.5fb73195@infradead.org> <49C5BBE8.6010906@zytor.com> <20090322233502.GC1114@deepthought> <49C96978.6050904@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:39:05 +0200 Message-ID: <94a0d4530903241639g71c1d519jf01740e10c9342d0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: My new fancy font for framebuffer From: Felipe Contreras To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Baybal Ni , Ken Moffat , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1496 Lines: 35 On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:15 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Baybal Ni wrote: >> >> So, why not just to squeeze the whole kbd into the kernel? =D, or you >> want the way how to inject bdf blob compiletime? These way it would >> violate the GPL almost the same way as you have already said. >> > > No, it wouldn't.  The fundamental requirement of the GPL is distribution of > the preferred editable format, which in this case is the BDF (and the > unicode files.) > >> Why you are so unhappy about GPL in GPL? I Think that it is perfectly >> ok as long as it goes along with 4 basics of GPL. And it does along >> with it. > > It has nothing to do with "4 basics", it has to do with the literal > specification in the license. ssencessence There is nothing wrong with > incorporating code from another GPL'd project (quite on the contrary, it's > encouraged), but it has to be in source code form -- a C file which contains > a processed binary is not source. > > Of course, you could contact the author and get a special exception, too (in > which case this should be declared in the file.) I thought you had to distribute the source code only if you made modifications. What's the point of distributing it _again_? -- Felipe Contreras -- 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/