Ragnar,
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Ragnar Paulson wrote:
>
> What is the nature of the Linus-GPL license? Will it force all uses of LSL
> to release their code to GPL? That is the first question that must be
> answered before we look at it. I know there is some difference of opinion
> about this in LiS ... however as it's is clearly David's intent not to force
> GPL on proprietary code I am happy.
By Linus-GPL, I mean the same terms and conditions on use and distribution as
the Linux kernel as stated by Linus Torvalds. Symbols are exported using
EXPORT_SYMBOL rather than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, meaning that kmod will link a
MODULE_LICENSE("Proprietary") binary kernel module with LfS. If your legal
department determines that is not sufficient, OpenSS7 Corporation will gladly
negotiate to sell you a commercial license on LfS at a reasonable fee.
> Brian, if you believe that all users of LSL should release their drivers to
> GPL, then we will respectively continue to use LiS.
Quite the reverse, the intent of using Linus-GPL is to permit proprietary
kernel modules to enjoy the same priviledges in using LfS as they enjoy for
the Linux kernel today.
> Frankly, we are conservative and loathe to change things that work.
I'm of the same mind. Unfortunately, LiS was no longer working for us and has
become too difficult to fix or maintain. Your mileage may vary.
> Until LiS is obsoleted or abandoned or a must have feature appears in LSL,
> it's unlikely we'd fund a development/test/QA effort to switch however minor
> it might be.
Sounds like one for your list, Dave.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock � The reasonable man adapts himself to the �
[EMAIL PROTECTED] � world; the unreasonable one persists in �
http://www.openss7.org/ � trying to adapt the world to himself. �
� Therefore all progress depends on the �
� unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw �
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
