On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:46:30PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
I'm not the one calling people names.
I wanted to understand the facts but nobody here wants to acknowledge that
3 of those files have *alternative* licensing.
I agree fully with you all in the other 5 files which are not dual licensed.
The full story I needed to know is clear on those 8 files involved in the diff
on lkml you shows us, what I wanted to know is your understanding. I see now
you seem to pretend that GPLv2 can't be chosen for those 3 files.
> > The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses.
Sure, let's make a gentleman's bet. If on those three files that are dual
licensed, I'm wrong, I'll donate 50 EUR to OpenBSD.
I also encourage those who agree with me to do so as well.
If you're wrong, you'll say sorry, publicly, ok?
Again, I'm talking only about the 3 files that are dual licensed, since on
the other 5 I agree with you, fully.
Rui
--
P'tang!
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Daniel Eischen | Re: error with thread |
