GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/
trini at kernel.crashing.org
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
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
http://penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml) for any platform that is not a
PowerMac. Similarly, discussion of most development issues, for
non-powermacs, takes place on the linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org
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.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev