From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH]: altq HFSC port Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:24:29 -0800 (PST) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040126.102429.55841404.davem@redhat.com> References: <1075128375.1746.392.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kaber@stinky.trash.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: hadi@cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <1075128375.1746.392.camel@jzny.localdomain> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: jamal Date: 26 Jan 2004 09:46:16 -0500 On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 07:02, Patrick McHardy wrote: > The last issue is the License: The altq version is released under a > BSD-style License without advertising clause (the original authors > kindly agreed to remove it). It is my understanding that this is > compatible with the GPL, and because the code includes some minor > amounts of GPL'ed code the correct License is GPL and not > Dual BSD/GPL. I would be glad if someone can confirm that this is > correct. This is probably the most contentious issue (given say current SCO stoopidty). Have you talked to the original author on this? I think granting you written consent to move to GPL may be sufficient. Yes, let's get this worked out before we stuff it into the tree :) Patrick, please ask the original author if it's OK to make your instance of the Linux port pure GPL'd.