On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 21:36, Samuel Bronson <naesten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Won't work that easily. Only an early sparse version, owned exclusively by transmeta may be alternatively distribute under the MIT license. To convert the current sparse version to MIT, we need to get all the contributors to agree to this. Not impossible, but someone needs to send lots of emails. ;) -- 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
