Uwe Hermann wrote: > Wait, the actual license is the GPL? It doesn't say so anywhere, so that > definately needs to be clarified. As I understood things until now, was > that the LANL-text is in itself a license, namely a BSD-ish one. > Would LANL agree to relicense their code to GPL, and/or remove the > BSD-ish text? It's really confusing...
it's weird, but the LANL code is gpl. so we just add it in. ron -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
