while you could add an additional clause to the GPL to allow it to be
linked into programs directly the I seriously doubt if the self appointed
'GPL police' would notice the issue and would expect that fears on the
subject would limit it's use.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:38:12 +0100 (CET)
> From: Roman Zippel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: H. Peter Anvin <email@example.com>
> Cc: Russell King <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Linus Torvalds <email@example.com>, Greg KH <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Right, of course. However, the first step (which Greg has accomplished)
> > is to get klibc merged into the kernel build. We already have ipconfig
> > and mount-nfs binaries which compile against klibc; now we need to
> > integrate them so they can pick up the ip= and nfsroot= options and do
> > the right thing in userspace.
> But before it's actually merged, I would slowly really like to know the
> reasoning for license. You completely avoid that question and that makes
> me nervous. Why did you choose this license over any GPL variant?
> We could as well integrate dietlibc and if anyone has a problem with it,
> he can still choose your klibc.
> Why should I contribute to klibc instead of dietlibc?
> bye, Roman
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to email@example.com
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/