|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interfac
|
To: |
Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal |
|
From: |
Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:46:10 -0800 |
|
Cc: |
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Joshua LeVasseur <jtl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pratap Subrahmanyam <pratap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>, Jack Lo <jlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Hecht <dhecht@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christopher Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Anne Holler <anne@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jyothy Reddy <jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Arai <arai@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:11:23 +0000 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<Pine.LNX.4.63.0603132329160.17874@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<200603131758.k2DHwQM7005618@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <441642EE.80900@xxxxxxxxxx> <4416460A.2090704@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0603132329160.17874@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) |
Rik van Riel wrote:
It would be very bad if Linus started applying code with
a dubious license to the kernel, if we want to keep the
kernel GPL v2.
I believe it says explicitly in our patches that they are licensed under
GPL v2.
Having an explicit license and a Signed-off-by: line are
things to remember with big patch sets. At the very least
a Signed-off-by: line.
There is a Signed-off-by line on every patch I send out, with full
knowledge that this constitutes the work of the author of the said line,
and full knowledge that this commits the patch into the domain of the
GPL license. Sorry for sounding like a lawyer here. IANAL, but I
thought that was completely implicit in all patches made to GPL'd
software. The signed off by provides accountability and open licensing
simultaneously.
But most importantly, I really don't understand how it is possible to
make a patch to the Linux kernel and not release it under GPL.
Zach
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home