Re: [Swsusp-devel] lzf license

From: Marc Lehmann
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 09:33:15 EST

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 10:20:48AM +1200, Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <pavel@xxxxxx> 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 +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at