On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 20:51, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Fruhwirth Clemens wrote:
> > 
> > As a matter of principle I do not add additional restrictions as respect
> > for the original author's efforts. But James, David or Linus might do
> > that, and by accident choose these additional restrictions to be like
> > those of the GPL. I would understand such action as I'd would like to
> > see that every kernel code is protected by the GPL.
> 
> That's not actually what we did. I refused the code originally because I
> didn't feel that Gladman's license was a proper subset of the GPL. 

I don't view the FSF as sort of last instance, but just for the
protocol: The exact wording of this license is labeled 'GPL-compatible'
by the FSF. Imho, this makes it a subset.

> I only accepted it after dual-licensing under the GPL had been ok'd by Dr Brian
> Gladman himself.

Additional coding, no problem, but additional social work, I'd prefer
not to be involved with. As there is no legal requirement, such efforts
would just make a good appearance. But, hey, if someone volunteers to
sort out these problems, my modifications to aes-i586.S can be
relicensed under the GPL anytime, no problem.

-- 
Fruhwirth Clemens <clemens@endorphin.org>  http://clemens.endorphin.org