GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Giuliano Pochini]

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".


Bye.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/