On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 05:00:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 12:22:26PM -0700, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > > Then we have an interesting problem. This has already been discussed > > on the linux kernel list. There consensus was it is consistant and > > still free. At one point, either 2.4 or 2.6, this code will be in the > > kernel. Do we move the kenrel into non-free? > > We might have to clip this code out of the kernels we distribute. > > Frankly, I think license this only needs a one word change (instead of > "non-GPL", make it "non-GPLable" or "incompatible with GPL") to remove > all ambiguity. However, we have every right to modify and redistribute > the kernel, should we deem it necessary.
It doesn't matter either way. Even if it means "only GPL", it is still a free software license. Linux is GPL, so it can be shipped with our system. I would still recommend to look at the full license before a decision is made. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
