From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267385AbUHDT4n (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:56:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267377AbUHDT4n (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:56:43 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:13004 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267385AbUHDT4i (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:56:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 12:56:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Fruhwirth Clemens cc: James Morris , Jari Ruusu , Kernel Mailing List , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.8-rc3 - BSD licensing In-Reply-To: <1091647612.24215.12.camel@ghanima> Message-ID: References: <1091644663.21675.51.camel@ghanima> <1091647612.24215.12.camel@ghanima> 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 On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Fruhwirth Clemens wrote: > > I don't view the FSF as sort of last instance, but just for the > protocol: The exact wording of this license is labeled 'GPL-compatible' > by the FSF. Imho, this makes it a subset. Ahh. Fair enough. I didn't have any lawyer look at it, I just don't like assuming. > Additional coding, no problem, but additional social work, I'd prefer > not to be involved with. As there is no legal requirement, such efforts > would just make a good appearance. I'd much rather do the social work, not so much necessarily for legal reasons, but for my own menal well-being. It's just _so_ much nicer to work with a code-base where none of the authors might complain about being included. So even if the original license is GPL-compatible, just the fact that Jari doesn't want his work re-licensed means that I don't want his work in the kernel - whether it's a legal issue or not. Now, I obviously believe that Jari has acted like an ass, since he has used the very same code under the GPL before, but hey, that's his problem. Jari - please stop distributing your loop-aes patches. If you consider the license to be non-GPL-compatible, then you have no business distributing the thing as kernel patches. Alternatively, just say it's GPL'd. You can't have it both ways. Linus