From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FT1q6-0007sA-AV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:14:18 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FT1q3-0007qr-MO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:14:17 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FT1q3-0007qo-Go
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:14:15 -0400
Received: from [199.45.160.85] (helo=harmony.bsdimp.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1FT1uk-0007pg-Pt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:19:07 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:11:52 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20060410.131152.104034520.imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] why is kqemu closed?
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ef9fbda81a71790b3cc0575ebf95538@localhost>
References: <41e41e7a0604100820y3a20e731n4fb22e14db01e54e@mail.gmail.com>
	<3ef9fbda81a71790b3cc0575ebf95538@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, sofar@foo-projects.org

In message: <3ef9fbda81a71790b3cc0575ebf95538@localhost>
            Auke Kok <sofar@foo-projects.org> writes:
: 
: 
: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:20:54 +0200, "Hetz Ben Hamo" <hetzbh@gmail.com> wrote:
: > Fabrice is the owner of the KQEMU code, and he decides for his own
: > reasons to put the code under closed source license.
: 
: I'm sure that Fabrice knows and that I'm beating a dead horse, but this is (strictly speaking, discussions pending ;^)) violating the linux kernel license agreement.

While that topic is unclear[*], at best, at the moment, I'll point out
that it isn't a violation of the FreeBSD license.  so everyone should
use FreeBSD :-)

Warner

[*] Different people who own large parts of the copyrights to Linux
have said different things on the topic.  Authoritative statements on
the topic therefore cannot be authoritative...