On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I'd rather dual license it BSD, honestly. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
