From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH]: altq HFSC port Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:47:02 +0100 Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <401560A6.7030803@trash.net> References: <1075128375.1746.392.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040126.102429.55841404.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20040126.102429.55841404.davem@redhat.com> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David S. Miller wrote: > 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. > This mail from Alan states that BSD without advertising clause linked with GPL ends up as GPL anyways, so I'm not sure if there is a problem. http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.2/0924.html I'm going to look for some more information before bothering the authors with License stuff again. Best regards, Patrick