| |||||||||||||
Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?Posted Mar 22, 2011 12:45 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
Perhaps the best way to get out of all this mess would be for the kernel folks to agree that the "cleansed for libc" header files are distributed under, say, the BSD license. AFAICS, this would be strictly in line with the 1993 decree from Linus, thus nobody should object kernel-side. For glibc-side (or other libcs), the BSD license should be liberal enough to be able to use it freely. Yes, this would need some auditing of what files (and what content of them) does land in the cleansed set. And perhaps some restructuring would be needed (i.e., the kernel-internal files #include the userland ones and add the internal stuff), as I don't believe a script will be trusted to do the conversion (+ license change) on its own.
(Log in to post comments)
Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line? Posted Mar 24, 2011 19:07 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Perhaps the best way to get out of all this mess would be for the kernel folks to agree that They can't. "Kernel folks" in this case means copyright holders of the kernel header files. It isn't feasible to find them all and get a new copyright license from them. Contrary to appearances, neither Linus nor the kernel maintainers have the power to permit any particular copying/deriving of the kernel.
Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line? Posted Mar 24, 2011 20:00 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] I didn't mean to imply it was easy, just the best way out. And the authors of the userland headers (at least the part that survives the non-glue removal) can't be that spread out, the gang of the usual suspects who have been hacking the kernel for almost two decades now surely wrote the inmensely overwhelming majority of this.
|
|||||||||||||