From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Greg KH <greg-U8xfFu+wG4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed ACPI Licensing change
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 09:46:23 -0800
Sender: linux-kernel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Message-ID: <20021207174623.GB16179@kroah.com>
References: <EDC461A30AC4D511ADE10002A5072CAD04C7A57F@orsmsx119.jf.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+linux-kernel=40quimby.gnus.org-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EDC461A30AC4D511ADE10002A5072CAD04C7A57F-OU+JdkIUtvd9zuciVAfUoVDQ4js95KgL@public.gmane.org>
To: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: acpi-devel-pyega4qmqnRoyOMFzWx49A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 04:10:00PM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> In order to solve this, we are considering releasing the Linux version of
> the interpreter under a dual license. This would allow direct incorporation
> of changes. Any patches submitted against the ACPI core code would
> implicitly be allowed to be used by us in a non-GPL context. This is already
> done elsewhere in the Linux kernel source by the PCMCIA code, for example.

Fine with me too.  What would the other license be?

thanks,

greg k-h