On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 08:48 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:49:41AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > For fio, it likely doesn't matter. Most people download the repository > > and compile it themselves when building the tool. In that case, there's > > no licence violation anyway (all GPL issues, including technical licence > > incompatibility, manifest on distribution not on use). It is a problem > > for the distributors, but they're well used to these type of self > > inflicted wounds. > > That's true, but it is setting a bear-trap for distributors. It's hardly a bear trap ... this type of annoyance is what they're used to. Some even just ignore it on the grounds of no harm no foul. The first thing they'll ask when they notice is for the protagonists to dual licence. > Might be better to keep the code repositories separate so at > lease people have a *chance* of noticing there's a problem > here. Actually, it might be better to *resolve* the problem before people notice ... if the combination is considered useful, of course. James -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>