hald/linux/acpi.[ch] dual-license?

[Danny Kukawka]

On Donnerstag, 29. März 2007, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
> Richard, David, Danny,
>
> We're in the process of adding ACPI/battery support to the Solaris HAL
> backend, and found that borrowing code from acpi.c could give us the most
> consistent behavior with Linux. Two key differences:
>
> 1) we get info from the driver, not /proc, i.e.
> hal_util_set_*_elem_from_file() become ioctl();
> 2) we do this in addon, not hald, i.e. hal_*() become libhal_*();

This mean you want to move stuff from acpi.c/h to libhal or do you only mean 
the functions to set keys?

> But assuming the underlying hardware is the same, those little bits of your
> experience with ACPI "peculiarities" on various systems incorporated in
> acpi.c could be useful to us.
>
> The problem is that acpi.[ch] are under GPL, as opposed to common HAL code
> which is GPL+AFL. Our addon-acpi is under AFL, so we cannot link them
> together. I wonder if it would be possible to also dual-license these two
> files?

I'm not sure what this imply for the leagal/license side. Are both licenses 
compatible (IMO there are several differences)? What are the advantages of 
AFL against GPL and why do we need to licenses in HAL?

Danny