Re: Linux 2.6.8-rc3 - BSD licensing

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Fruhwirth Clemens wrote:
> 
> 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.

Ahh. Fair enough. I didn't have any lawyer look at it, I just don't like 
assuming.

> 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.

I'd much rather do the social work, not so much necessarily for legal 
reasons, but for my own menal well-being. It's just _so_ much nicer to 
work with a code-base where none of the authors might complain about being 
included.

So even if the original license is GPL-compatible, just the fact that Jari 
doesn't want his work re-licensed means that I don't want his work in the 
kernel - whether it's a legal issue or not. 

Now, I obviously believe that Jari has acted like an ass, since he has
used the very same code under the GPL before, but hey, that's his problem. 

Jari - please stop distributing your loop-aes patches. If you consider the 
license to be non-GPL-compatible, then you have no business distributing 
the thing as kernel patches. Alternatively, just say it's GPL'd. You can't 
have it both ways.

		Linus