| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: system call documentation [license question] |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:55:27 +0000 |
| Cc: | Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Andries.Brouwer@xxxxxx, kaos@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030202155017.GA13373@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from ak@xxxxxxx on Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:50:17PM +0100 |
| References: | <1044199525.1372.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0302021633280.1441-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030202155017.GA13373@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:50:17PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Another alternative would be the new FDL from the FSF > (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html) > but it seems to be a bit too complicated for me. 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. I'd be happy if we wouldn't get any FDL-pollution into linux-specific packages.. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: system call documentation [license question], Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: system call documentation [license question], Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: system call documentation [license question], Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: system call documentation [license question], Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |