From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Massimiliano Hofer <max@nucleus.it>
Subject: Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:08:29 +0200
Message-ID: <200808012108.30486.max@nucleus.it>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0807192237270.9838@fairy.dhcp.penguin> <200808011734.14053.max@nucleus.it> <alpine.LNX.1.10.0808011359450.6855@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0808011359450.6855@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
Cc: Stephane Ouellette <ouellettes@videotron.ca>, Eicke Friedrich/Klaus Degner <ipp2p@ipp2p.org>, Sebastian =?iso-8859-1?q?Cla=DFen?= <sebastian.classen@freenet.ag>, netfilter@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Schulman <andrex@alumni.utexas.net>

On Friday 1 August 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> Well how about "v2 or later"?

If you'd like "v2 or v3", I may agree.
Anyway I don't like the idea of an unspecified future license. It defeats the 
very goal of free software.

On a purely practical note, given that the kernel code has to be GPLv2 (for 
the forseeable future), won't it be a license nightmare if the userspace were 
under a different license?
I know the userspace is not derived form the kernel, but this would surely add 
complexity.

-- 
Bye,
   Massimiliano Hofer
        Nucleus

P.S.: I don't want to start a flame war. It's just my opinion and I respect 
other people's (different) views.