[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH]: altq HFSC port

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: altq HFSC port
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:47:02 +0100
Cc: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040126.102429.55841404.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.42.0401261228290.22399-200000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075128375.1746.392.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040126.102429.55841404.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3
David S. Miller wrote:
   From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: 26 Jan 2004 09:46:16 -0500

   On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 07:02, Patrick McHardy wrote:
   > The last issue is the License: The altq version is released under a
   > BSD-style License without advertising clause (the original authors
   > kindly agreed to remove it). It is my understanding that this is
   > compatible with the GPL, and because the code includes some minor
   > amounts of GPL'ed code the correct License is GPL and not
   > Dual BSD/GPL. I would be glad if someone can confirm that this is
   > correct.
This is probably the most contentious issue (given say current SCO
   Have you talked to the original author on this? I think granting you
   written consent to move to GPL may be sufficient.

Yes, let's get this worked out before we stuff it into the tree :)

Patrick, please ask the original author if it's OK to make your
instance of the Linux port pure GPL'd.

This mail from Alan states that BSD without advertising clause linked
with GPL ends up as GPL anyways, so I'm not sure if there is a problem.
I'm going to look for some more information before bothering the
authors with License stuff again.

Best regards,

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>