xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: system call documentation [license question]

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: system call documentation [license question]
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:03:24 +0000
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Andries.Brouwer@xxxxxx, kaos@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030202185526.A1558@infradead.org>; from hch@infradead.org on Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 06:55:27PM +0000
References: <1044199525.1372.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0302021633280.1441-100000@muriel.parsec.at> <20030202155017.GA13373@wotan.suse.de> <20030202185526.A1558@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 06:55:27PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> At least the Debian folks considere this license non-free (and I fully
> agree with tham, not that it matters..), so there's a singnificant
> part of the Linux userbase that won't easily get them.

(Small addition before I get flamed heavily)

The FSF-advocacy of the FDL is optional, but even this part beeing written
down in the FDL makes it hard to find out whether something FDL-licensed
actually is free or not and makes the license a rather bad choice.

IMHO a BSD-style license is a very good choice for documentation, but other
people may have other preferences..


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