Re: [Swsusp-devel] lzf license

From: Marc Lehmann
Date: Sat Mar 27 2004 - 19:46:32 EST

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:56:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> 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 +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / 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