> Overall,
> I think that distributing linux with no compilers, no kernel config and
> incomplete includes should not be allowed by the licence. They can be removed
> by the user but should be installed by default and in all preloads by the
> distributor.
This makes sense at first glance, but a licence restriction is too much,
really.
Consider distributions targeted at embedded systems. Consider
floppy-based
distributions. Adding a compiler would be way too much.
And there are lots of other cases. I have two machines
at home, one is old with a 250MB drive. There is no room for gcc on it,
it is
dedicated for word processing and some games. New kernels are compiled
on the
other machine and transferred. A kernel license requiring a gcc install
would
complicate the use of such old machines unnecessarily - even if I could
deinstall
gcc later.
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:15 EST