linux-kernel - Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:06:29 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>
Cc:	Kevin Bowling <lkml@...009.com>,
	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
	Marc Perkel <mperkel@...oo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

On 15-06-2007 08:52, debian developer wrote:
...
> Even if it's just a name change, it will be a different license and 
> requires the
> agreement of all authors. It's much easier( not that we want to) to go
> to GPLv3 than
> go to LKL.

Doing bad things is usually much easier than good things.
After doing something much easier redoing it may be much
harder or even impossible. And this need of agreement of
all authors looks like a really promising principle of
large project management...

Regards,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/