On 09/16/2016 02:45 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> And then there's the question of whether excluding things from the
>>> build, but having them present in the sources actually helps.
>> The main reason for this whole relicensing debacle is to prevent non-GPL
>> binaries from linking against GPL objects, and this patch allows us to
>> do that. Yes, there will be be two non-LGPL files (dsdt.asl amd
>> mk_dsdt.c, which I will revert back to GPL) in an otherwise LGPL
>> directory but that's an in-convenience and not a license violation.
> Well, if linking is all this is about, then it's fine of course. I'm just
> not a license expert, so we'd need this acked by someone who is
> more familiar with the differences and implications.

I think Ian and Lars (added both here) would be the most experienced in
this matter.

I could move these two files into tools/libacpi/gpl subdirectory to
emphasize their special licensing.


Xen-devel mailing list

Reply via email to