Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-21 17:56 EST ------- I'll try to address your concerns, but understand that we fight this battle every day with people who don't agree with our dual licensing model (or dual licensing in general), so I don't expect to change your minds :-) In regards to the question about Zaptel being GPL and not being usable under other licenses, that is not true. There are parts of Zaptel that are most definitely not derivatives of the Linux kernel and we want to retain the ability to license those parts of Zaptel outside the GPL. Stating that 'Zaptel is GPL' is somewhat of a simplification, because in reality you mean that 'the Zaptel distributed by Digium via their web/FTP servers is GPL', but we have the ability to distribute it via other means as well. As far as the 2.4 kernel issue goes, we definitely do consider that to be a concern, because we have limited kernel developer resources and don't wish to spend their time duplicating efforts, and there is still rather a large population of users running Zaptel on 2.4 kernels (we have received bug reports as recently as this week regarding new drivers we have not building/installing on 2.4). However, that is secondary to the licensing issue in any case. I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Digium would decide to change the licensing model for Zaptel just so that it can be incorporated into Fedora Extras. While I don't wish to start a flamewar, I do find it somewhat curious that Debian does package Zaptel and they generally seem to be even more restrictive regarding licensing that most other distributions are... but I understand that your concern here is not the licensing issue, but our non-interest in pushing the Zaptel drivers upstream into the mainline kernel. I've added myself to the CC list for this issue; I'm happy to answer your questions and try to provide any technical assistance required, but the licensing issues are what they are. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review