> phillips@bonn-fries.net (Daniel Phillips) wrote on 22.01.02 in <E16Snav-0001kl-00@starship.berlin>:
>>On January 21, 2002 06:05 pm, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
>>
>>This is kernel autoconfig, different namespace, same idea. I don't think
>>you have a problem. Besides, last time I checked, autoconfig wasn't
>>copyrighted.
>>
>
> Last time I checked, autoconf (not -ig) was GPL. But as long as you don't
> use code from it, copyright is completely irrelevant anyway: trademark
> status might be relevant when you're talking about names. (And %@$&$!
> patent status when talking about algorithms.)
>
No problem on copyright, licences,...
I choose (for the file names, not for the 'make autoconfig') a
longer name, to distinguish the kernel autoconfig from the
GNU autoconf (without the final 'ig').
Only for pratical reasons.
If autoconfigure will go in the kernel, I have not problems on
filenames, but when I initially created it, I thinked ev. to
distribuite it as a package. Here the name matter.
IMHO longer filename ia a good things (iff normal user should
not type it).
giacomo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/