|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interfac
|
To: |
Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal |
|
From: |
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:58:40 +0100 (MET) |
|
Cc: |
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Christopher Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pratap Subrahmanyam <pratap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>, Joshua LeVasseur <jtl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Hecht <dhecht@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jack Lo <jlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Anne Holler <anne@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jyothy Reddy <jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Arai <arai@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:57:55 +0000 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<441658A2.4090905@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
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> <441658A2.4090905@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
>
> 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.
>
If the patch is so ultimatively trivial that there is only a few solutions (one
or two), then there is no use in gpl'ing that flock of patchcode, in which case
I think, it is (or at best should be) public domain. In conjunction with the
patched function, they will/should become GPL.
Jan Engelhardt
--
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home