On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 10:20:48AM +1200, Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure what the verdict is in the end. Do we need changes to the
> license? If so, could you send me a patch, Marc?
I have no idea. I made an offer on how to change the license, if that
isn't ok, I'd like to hear.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:47:37PM +0100, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Linking BSD w/o advertising with kernel is okay, but it would taint
> the kernel, and is bad idea w.r.t. patents, anyway. Dual BSD/GPL is
> better way to go.
Well, if there is any problem with relicensing the code as GPL, let me
know. I offered to change the license to make this smoother, but lots of
kernel code came from a bsd license and was relicensed before.
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).
I am now back from the cebit and much more responsive, btw.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
Hi!
> > Linking BSD w/o advertising with kernel is okay, but it would taint
> > the kernel, and is bad idea w.r.t. patents, anyway. Dual BSD/GPL is
> > better way to go.
>
> Well, if there is any problem with relicensing the code as GPL, let me
> know. I offered to change the license to make this smoother, but lots of
> kernel code came from a bsd license and was relicensed before.
>
> 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?
--
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:56:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> 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 +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|