Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2

H. Peter Anvin
2003-03-07T19:33:04Z

Kai Germaschewski wrote:
>
> Correct me, IANAL, but my understanding is that klibc will be dual
> GPL/<whatever it is now> by inclusion into the kernel tree, after all the
> whole purpose is to provide an initramfs which will be linked into vmlinux
> (Yes, linked not in the normal sense, but still).
>

I don't actually think dual licensing is necessary, since the new
BSD/MIT license is generally considered to be GPL-compatible (i.e. it
grants all the rights the GPL does.) The dual license concept dates
back to the "old BSD" license, which definitely was *not* GPL-compatible.

> So it'd rather be similar to some parts of the kernel which are already
> dual licensed (parts of ACPI I think being the latest example), and
> patches will be assumed to be contributed under that dual license, unless
> explicitly stated otherwise.

This is pretty much it, except I believe explicit dual licensing is
superfluous. If anyone has evidence to the contrary please let me know.

-hpa