From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Hefty Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:27:49 +0000 Subject: Re: [openib-general] Re: [KJ] [RFC] TODO file cleanups Message-Id: <41EFF825.20502@ichips.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============48292275074438473==" List-Id: References: <20050117231123.GC19162@nd47.coderock.org> In-Reply-To: <20050117231123.GC19162@nd47.coderock.org> To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org --===============48292275074438473== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg KH wrote: >>>Personally, I think it's a stupid thing to try to license this code in a >>>dual way, as any port someone is going to have to do to get this code to >>>work in another os will be almost a complete rewrite in the end >>>anyway... >> >>I think that companies want to be able to make derivative works without >>needing to make the derivative open source, versus porting it to >>another OS. > > And then run that derivitave work on a Linux GPL kernel? Hah, good luck > with your lawyers if you try to do that. And good luck trying to work > around symbols that the openib code is using that are marked > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). > > Why do people try to do such stupid things, haven't the IB members > learned from the past... I'm not criticizing or defending this, just guessing the reason for the dual license. --===============48292275074438473== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============48292275074438473==--