From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Machek <pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed ACPI Licensing change
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:59:02 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Message-ID: <20021209185902.GB2934@zaurus>
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

Hi!

> 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.
> 
> Comments?

Good idea, and should have been done year
ago. I was always wondering why noone
patches ACPI :-).
-- 
				Pavel
Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...