On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Manuel Bouyer wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 10:30:02AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > I think things might have changed with GPL version 2, but GPL version 1
> > did NOT require everything else be GPL'd, just everything else had to be
> > as free as the GPL. The advertizing clause Berkeley added to its license
> > was not that free, thus the GPL & Berkeley licenses don't mix problem.
> > Note that most of our ext2fs support came right out of the Linux kernel -
> > those files weren't GPL'd. They just were as free as the GPL.
> 
> That's not true: I rewrote ext2 support from scratch.

Hmmm.. Then I'm mis-rememberd things. I was recalling some comments from
the beginning of an ext2fs thread, where the non-GPL'd-ness caused a happy
commotion. :-)

If you re-wrote it all, then all the better. :-)

Take care,

Bill