[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal
- To: Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:58:40 +0100 (MET)
- Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Christopher Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pratap Subrahmanyam <pratap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>, Joshua LeVasseur <jtl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Hecht <dhecht@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jack Lo <jlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Anne Holler <anne@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jyothy Reddy <jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Arai <arai@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:57:55 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
>
> But most importantly, I really don't understand how it is possible to make a
> patch to the Linux kernel and not release it under GPL.
>
If the patch is so ultimatively trivial that there is only a few solutions (one
or two), then there is no use in gpl'ing that flock of patchcode, in which case
I think, it is (or at best should be) public domain. In conjunction with the
patched function, they will/should become GPL.
Jan Engelhardt
--
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
