Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2

[H. Peter Anvin]

Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> 
> Correct me, IANAL, but my understanding is that klibc will be dual 
> GPL/<whatever it is now> by inclusion into the kernel tree, after all the 
> whole purpose is to provide an initramfs which will be linked into vmlinux 
> (Yes, linked not in the normal sense, but still). 
> 

I don't actually think dual licensing is necessary, since the new 
BSD/MIT license is generally considered to be GPL-compatible (i.e. it 
grants all the rights the GPL does.)  The dual license concept dates 
back to the "old BSD" license, which definitely was *not* GPL-compatible.

> So it'd rather be similar to some parts of the kernel which are already
> dual licensed (parts of ACPI I think being the latest example), and
> patches will be assumed to be contributed under that dual license, unless
> explicitly stated otherwise.

This is pretty much it, except I believe explicit dual licensing is 
superfluous.  If anyone has evidence to the contrary please let me know.

	-hpa