Hi,
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, David Lang wrote:
> The reason he gave back when the discussion was first started (months ago)
> was that klibc is designed to be directly linked into programs, and it was
> felt that this would not be possible with the GPL. In fact klibc was
> adopted instead of dietlibc speceificly BECOUSE of the license.
There is still the possibility to support multiple libc implementation, if
you don't like dietlibc, you're still free to use klibc.
> while you could add an additional clause to the GPL to allow it to be
> linked into programs directly the I seriously doubt if the self appointed
> 'GPL police' would notice the issue and would expect that fears on the
> subject would limit it's use.
Could we at least try to not let this degenerate into a flamewar? Thanks.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:40 EST