> I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is > incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
Then we have an interesting problem. This has already been discussed on the linux kernel list. There consensus was it is consistant and still free. At one point, either 2.4 or 2.6, this code will be in the kernel. Do we move the kenrel into non-free? Andrew
