GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

Tom Rini trini at
Mon Jun 16 10:04:18 EST 2003

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:47:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:55:23PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > I think you should ask someone responsible first.  And on the correct
> > mailing list as well.  Armin is not responsible for this code, Scott
> > Anderson is.  Armin just put it into the linuxppc-2.5 tree.
> Well, thanks for this explanation, you might aswell have answered when
> I posted thiß to the linuxppc list the first time.  But neither of this
> is guessable, the only info I had is that Armin commited it..

I thought you had seen the msg I left for you on IRC.  Either way, lets
try this again (and this could probably use being thrown up somewhere in
general even):

Welcome to the wonderful world of the ppc32 kernel.  By and large, code
has (and in some cases, still is :( ) started off first, and kept more
up to date in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (see for any platform that is not a
PowerMac.  Similarly, discussion of most development issues, for
non-powermacs, takes place on the linuxppc-embedded at
list.  For pmacs, things seem to be spread over debian-powerpc, (quite
probably) the yellowdog users list, and to a lesser extent, the
linuxppc-users list as well.

> > Second,
> > Peter Ryser (who handles the Xilinx side of things) is on the
> > linuxppc-embedded list, where most of the 4xx people are.  Finally,
> > Peter knows about this, and last I knew was talking to their legal
> > department.  Peter, any news on this?
> Yeah, I think it's _really_ time we get any update on this.  Guys,
> remember that this renders the linuxppc tree undistributable in
> strong legaleese so you'd better care.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal, so long as it doesn't get
dropped on the floor, but it does need to be resolved.

Tom Rini

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list