Syslinux - Mar 2012 - new chain cleanups - question re. preferred license

I'm preparing a few simple patches that will cleanup few things 
regarding new chain - in particular the ones I mentioned in Januray 
during discussion with Shao (tone down overkill abstractions, etc.).

One question on a formal side though - which license is preferred at the 
top of the source files ? Currently there're two present - either 
something bsd-ish (on parts derived from Shao's partition handling 
code), GPL (from former chain.c) or in some other files - nothing atm 
yet (mostly on files that came from code splitting).

Good day, Michal!

I seem to recall that your re-write was extensive enough that the
license for any code derived from my partition-iteration code could be
discarded; my permission is granted for a license change.

Having said that, H. Peter might have another preference, but otherwise
I would suggest the GPL from the old chain.c32.  I seem to recall H.
Peter mentioning something about an MIT license at one point, but that
was probably for something different.

Thank you for resurrecting your effort(s)!

- Shao Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: Michal Soltys [mailto:soltys at ziu.info] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:57
To: For discussion of Syslinux and tftp-hpa
Cc: Miller, Shao
Subject: new chain cleanups - question re. preferred license

I'm preparing a few simple patches that will cleanup few things 
regarding new chain - in particular the ones I mentioned in Januray 
during discussion with Shao (tone down overkill abstractions, etc.).

One question on a formal side though - which license is preferred at the

top of the source files ? Currently there're two present - either 
something bsd-ish (on parts derived from Shao's partition handling 
code), GPL (from former chain.c) or in some other files - nothing atm 
yet (mostly on files that came from code splitting).

On 03/27/2012 09:57 AM, Michal Soltys wrote:
> I'm preparing a few simple patches that will cleanup few things
> regarding new chain - in particular the ones I mentioned in Januray
> during discussion with Shao (tone down overkill abstractions, etc.).
> 
> One question on a formal side though - which license is preferred at the
> top of the source files ? Currently there're two present - either
> something bsd-ish (on parts derived from Shao's partition handling
> code), GPL (from former chain.c) or in some other files - nothing atm
> yet (mostly on files that came from code splitting).
On another issue... we currently have a name collision in the tree.  Is
the new chain.c32 a proper superset of the old one so we can retire the old?

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.