Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Roman Zippel wrote:
> 
> 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.
>

Actually I don't, you just don't like to hear the answer.  I believe I
have stated and restated this several times already.

>
> 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?
> 

One more time, with feeling...

a) I, as well as the other early userspace developers, feel that the
advantages of allowing linking nonfree applications outweigh the
disadvantages.

b) I will personally go batty if I ever have to create yet another
implementation of printf() and the few other things in klibc that is
anything other than a thin shim over the kernel interface.  The bottom
line is that klibc is so Linux-specific, that the only way someone would
"steal" code from it is because they want a specific subroutine
somewhere, and as far as I'm concerned, they can have it, and I don't
care in the slightest for what project.

	-hpa