Re: Proposed ACPI Licensing change

From: H. Peter Anvin (
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 14:39:56 EST

Followup to: <astkea$6ej$>
By author: (Linus Torvalds)
In newsgroup:
> In fact, I don't think I'd even merge a patch where the submitter tried
> to limit dual-license code to a simgle license (it might happen with
> some non-maintained stuff where the original source of the dual license
> is gone, but if somebody tried to send me an ACPI patch that said "this
> is GPL only", then I just wouldn't take it).
> So yes, dual-license code can become GPL-only, but not in _my_ tree.

This is good. I'd like to keep klibc under a BSD/GPL license because
some people (e.g. Al Viro) have issued concerns about making a
nondynamic user-space library GPL or LGPL, and I pretty much agree
with their concerns. The current klibc tarball isn't completely
"untainted", since it contains "fixed"/modified kernel headers in a
few places, but I'm hoping to migrate those changes back into the
kernel headers proper once the merge is done.


<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."	<>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:15 EST