Greg KH wrote: > The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the > case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told > Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.) > Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.
> So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections. > I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes, including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at the moment, we effectively have no choice. Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from scratch? (NB this is the ebuild, not the software packaged.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
