On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Anderson Lizardo <anderson.lizardo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Samuel Bronson <naesten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I just don't feel comfortable contributing under the OSL 1.1, for some >> reason -- possibly because it's considered non-DFSG, possibly because >> it's even more restrictive than the GPL ... > > If you look at the recent mailing list archives, you will find that a > particular snapshot of the git tree was relicensed by the original > copyright holder (Transmeta?) under the MIT license. It seems the > current developers intend to check with the other copyright holders > (for code commited after the particular relicensed snapshot) for a > license change. > > So I would you suggest at least using the MIT license to not "pollute" > the code with yet another license... Oh, sure, that's fine with me! Hadn't heard about that. The MIT/X11 license is almost the same as the ISC license. Go ahead and s/ISC license/MIT license/ in these patches, though I don't think either of the patches that actually work (1/3 and 3/3) give me copyright on any code anyway. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
