| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 06:55:27PM +0000 |
| References: | <1044199525.1372.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0302021633280.1441-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030202155017.GA13373@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030202185526.A1558@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: system call documentation [license question], Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: system call documentation [license question], Chris Wedgwood |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: system call documentation [license question], Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: system call documentation [license question], Chris Wedgwood |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |