Andrew Deason <[email protected]> writes: > By not 'touch'ing I meant: does not link against IPL code, is not > derivative of IPL code, is not copied from IPL code, etc.
I suppose we could have a case like that, but I'd be reluctant, in the abstract (the specific example may of course lead that way) to accept something like that because it's a significant limitation on how we transform that code going forward. If some of that code ends up fitting better into a library, we can't move it. We can't link it with a standard command argument parsing library. Etc. The one exception that comes to mind is a new Linux kernel module or something else that's entirely kernel space, since that doesn't pose as many of the same issues and having Linux kernel modules licensed under the GPL is useful for a bunch of reasons. But even then, it would be nice to have it dual-licensed under the IPL for future reuse elsewhere if needed. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
