From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:46:06 +0100 Message-ID: <44E67B6E.10706@goop.org> References: <1155202505.18420.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44DB7596.6010503@goop.org> <20060819012133.GH7813@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060819012133.GH7813@stusta.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Chris Wright , virtualization , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > These are Linux specific operations. > > Without an _GPL you are in the grey area where courts have to decide = > whether a module using this would be a derived work according to = > copyright law in $country_of_the_court and therefore has to be GPL. > > With the _GPL, everything is clear without any lawyers involved. > = Hardly. The _GPL is a hint as to the intent of the author, but it is no = more than a hint. My intent here (and I think the intent of the other authors) is not to = cause breakage of things which currently work, so the _GPL is not = appropriate for that reason. Paravirt_ops is a restatement of many = interfaces which already exist in Linux in a non-_GPL form, so making = the structure _GPL is effectively relicensing them. J