Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-07-29 12:47 EST -------
(In reply to comment #43)
> (In reply to comment #42)
> Which you realize would mean [...]

Yes, I realized that. But there are 3rd party Fedora {Core|Extras} add-on repos
out there that have different requirements for kmods -- one could submitt it 
> I agree that Digium's development model leaves a bit to be desired (who needs 
> to
> change the license of the kernel module anyway, and is that even legal?),

The dual-licensing is not the problem afaics and afaik the details. For me it's
only the "we don't want it upstream" mentality. I think every module should be
in the kernel (see also )
and kmod in Extras are an interim solution to fill the timeframe until they get
upstream (and in an ideal world people would get their drivers merged into the
kernel as soon as they basically work) .

> but
> the fact is that zaptel is GPL, so is this really the right place to draw the
> proverbial line in the sand?

Well, one kernel-developer is hightly respect thinks the line should be drawn
even earlier -- see Bug 189400 comment 9

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to