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 ------- Additional Comments From dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-02 19:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #54) > I know that you don't have a problem with including a dual-licensed component > into your distribution, and I also know that Linus et. al. don't have a problem > including dual-licensed code into the kernel tree. Those are not our concern. > > What is our concern is that if Zaptel is merged into the main kernel tree, from > that point forward anyone who wants to improve it can do so without contributing > their changes to our version of Zaptel, which devalues our dual licensing of > Zaptel completely. In practice, that doesn't happen. I maintain a large chunk of dual-licensed code in the kernel (JFFS2), and Linus doesn't _take_ updates from anyone other than me unless they're trivial oneliners and build fixes, which you really don't have to worry about. People _already_ have the option to take your version of Zaptel and 'improve' it without giving their changes back. If I were inclined to do that, the _first_ thing I'd do is submit my version to Linus and become the defacto maintainer of it. You'd probably do well to get there first. -- 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