On 30-08-2007 13:59, Johannes Berg wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:13 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> 
>> How about asking for changes to be dual-licenced too ?
> 
> In theory, that could work, but in practice relying on functions that
> the Linux kernel offers in GPLv2-only headers etc. will make the result
> GPLv2 anyway, and disentangling it would be a nightmare.
> 

Why?

Very good point, but, in my opinion, it should be still resonable for
both sides: it simply means such changes are mostly unusable for the
other side, but nobody is going to waste time for marking all these
places, or care about suing if accidentally the changes, after some
adaptation, are usable for the other side. Unless you think or know
that "#include xyz" or "print_linux_way()" should add more than these
(maybe unusable) words or lines only?

Jarek P.
-
unsubscribe notice
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/