From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: writable limits to -next Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:04:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4AC6339B.7000905@gmail.com> <20091006225751.7d5f3eec.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4AE16B0A.7020400@gmail.com> <20091026094741.5a1d492c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091026120457.39f7ab83.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:36773 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754376AbZJZNE3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:04:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20091026120457.39f7ab83.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:04:57 +1100") Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jiri Slaby , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , James Morris , Stephen Smalley , Eric Paris , Andrew Morton Stephen Rothwell writes: >> It's not ok to submit under e.g. GPL v3 only, I'd suggest "under GPL v2 >> and optionally other licence(s)" or something like that. > > Or maybe "under a license compatible with the Linux kernel source". Right, it looks better. Now I think the author doesn't even have to licence under GPLv2, e.g. BSD alone will do as well. -- Krzysztof Halasa