Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S314329AbSD0SNi>; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:13:38 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S314330AbSD0SNh>; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:13:37 -0400
Received: from adsl-64-171-6-36.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net ([64.171.6.36]:54781
	"EHLO k2-400.lameter.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S314329AbSD0SNg>; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:13:36 -0400
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] BK license change
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204271103290.5887-100000@k2-400.lameter.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

The best thing would be to stop this egg-dance around open sourceness and
release BK under GPL. This is wasting too much time. Trying to use a
non-free product to make sure other peoples source code is available via
GPL? How imaginative and creative ... Wow...

Major organizations (such as Debian and lots of related projects
committed to free software f.e.) will not use BK with the
current licensing scheme so why bother with this?

I do not even know how BK works and I am not interested ...
just offended by ppl making access to development kernel source code
difficult and offended by someone with a star status apparently being
able to abuse the system.

-
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/