On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 06:27:52PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Can you weigh in on the licensing threads, pretty please? That is > still blocked on you, AFAIK. Sure. For my part, I'd *love* to see Sparse relicensed to something more palatable. Ideally, I'd love to see Sparse become GPL-compatible. I'd prefer a stronger copyleft over a weaker one. I have no problem with relicensing Sparse to any of the following licenses, in rough order of preference: - GPL (v2 or v3, with or without "or any later version") - LGPL (v2.1 or v3, with or without "or any later version") - Either of the above with some kind of additional exception similar to those used for GCC and related libraries. - Any of the above dual-licensed with the OSL, if people care about preserving that for some reason. Seems unnecessarily complex to do so, though. I'd prefer not to see Sparse relicensed to something entirely non-copyleft like the MIT license, but if the rest of the Sparse community wants that for some reason, I won't stand in the way. If you need any more formal approval from me, please let me know. Thanks, Josh Triplett -- 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
