GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/
pochini at shiny.it
Fri Jun 13 17:58:58 EST 2003
On 12-Jun-2003 Larry McVoy wrote:
> You might want to be careful about advertising why you want these files
> removed because the Xilinx clause is just covering their butt. If someone
> uses Linux in some life support system and someone dies, the fact that
> the community removed these files because of that clause could be construed
> as a statement that Linux was suitable for life support systems. It gives
> the lawyers ammo.
I don't think so. GPL says "WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY".
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev