Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:26:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:26:56 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:11431 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:26:55 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:29:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Oliver Xymoron To: Alexander Viro cc: Rob Landley , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Albert D. Cahalan" , Subject: Re: klibc development release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: 1225 Lines: 32 On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Alexander Viro wrote: > > What's wrong with LGPL? I thought libraries were what it was originally > > klibc is static-only. So for all practical purposes LGPL would be every bit > as viral as GPV itself. You say that as if it were a bad thing. (And technically incorrect, if you also provide .o files so that the end user can relink as they desire.) That aside for the moment, isn't the plan to pull stuff that's currently GPL out of the kernel and link against this lib anyway? Second point - if it goes into the kernel source tree as suggested, but with a 'copycenter' license, we can expect to have the nVidia problem but worse. Making it GPL shouldn't be a big deal. It is intended to be a small amount of code, after all. And I'd hate to get into a situation where people started shipping their magic 'make the hardware work' bits as closed replacements for the early boot code. -- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." - 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/