From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: [PATCH can-utils 3/3] slcand: remove program as it is undistributable Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:59:19 +0100 Message-ID: <52D2F417.9090807@hartkopp.net> References: <20130817190521.GK30496@pengutronix.de> <1389481823-8379-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1389481823-8379-4-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <52D27518.5040202@hartkopp.net> <52D2DD7B.2070003@hartkopp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.220]:50239 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750999AbaALT7W (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:59:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Yegor Yefremov Cc: =?UTF-8?B?VXdlIEtsZWluZS1Lw7ZuaWc=?= , "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" , Marc Kleine-Budde On 12.01.2014 20:54, Yegor Yefremov wrote: >>> Would this call do the job: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/daemon.3.html? >> >> Yes, I think so. >> (..) > > Would it be sufficient to submit a patch, that reimplements > daemonize() and fixes license? Instead of removing the file and > readding it? > Yes. Fixing this with a patch should be appropriate. There's so many slcan specific code in slcand (of course) that pointing at this special issue is the right thing to do IMO. Regards, Oliver