Re: Proposed ACPI Licensing change

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <astkea$6ej$1@penguin.transmeta.com>
By author:    torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds)
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> In fact, I don't think I'd even merge a patch where the submitter tried
> to limit dual-license code to a simgle license (it might happen with
> some non-maintained stuff where the original source of the dual license
> is gone, but if somebody tried to send me an ACPI patch that said "this
> is GPL only", then I just wouldn't take it). 
> 
> So yes, dual-license code can become GPL-only, but not in _my_ tree. 
> 

This is good.  I'd like to keep klibc under a BSD/GPL license because
some people (e.g. Al Viro) have issued concerns about making a
nondynamic user-space library GPL or LGPL, and I pretty much agree
with their concerns.  The current klibc tarball isn't completely
"untainted", since it contains "fixed"/modified kernel headers in a
few places, but I'm hoping to migrate those changes back into the
kernel headers proper once the merge is done.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>