Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Aug 2007 21:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 264145
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 11:43 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
This is in one way correct. No-one is forced to license new code any one way or another. If a Linux kernel contributor suddenly decided their new code was to be proprietary licensed, then indeed the Linux kernel devs would cease to accept new contributions from that person.
Doesn't mean squat for any previous contributions however ... they would still be released under GPL, and the Linux kernel could still use them and redistribute the whole kernel under the GPL.
Harmed? That is FUD and/or malicious lying pure & simple.
Firstly, it is very difficult to get your code accepted into the Linux kernel ... not the other way around ... it isn't as though Linux is desperate for contributions or anything. If any contributor was getting difficult to relate with, it would simply become a case of "so long, and thanks for all the fish".
In fact, there was a case like this recently with the "CK" scheduler vs the CFS scheduler. The kernel lost a talented contributor, but que sera, life moves on ... and so on. Anyone "come to harm?" ... hardly.
Edited 2007-08-17 13:32