From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH]: altq HFSC port Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:40:26 +0100 Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <40155F1A.7070507@trash.net> References: <1075128375.1746.392.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" Return-path: To: hadi@cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <1075128375.1746.392.camel@jzny.localdomain> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: > 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. I talked to the original authors and they removed the advertising clause (http://orange.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/kame/sys/altq/altq_hfsc.c), but they didn't want to release the code under the GPL. Various posts on linux-kernel indicate that combining GPL code with BSD code without advertising clause makes the end-product automatically be subject to the GPL, even without consent of the authors. I basically meant to ask if this is true. > > cheers, > jamal > > PS:- i will look at the code and give you some feedback. > I'm looking forward to it. Best regards, Patrick