Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 29-08-2007 21:37, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote:
>> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported
>> from BSD, how do you license it?
> I think it's a valid assumption, if we say that the author
> of the patch read the license header of a file and agreed with it.
> So the patch is licensed to whatever the fileheader says. And if
> there's none, it's licensed with the COPYING terms.
> If a patch author likes some other license conditions, he must
> explicitely add them with the patch to the file, saying that this
> and that part have these and those conditions. Of course they must
> be compatible with the original license.

I didn't track this thread from the beginning, so maybe I repeat
somebody's ideas (probably like above), but IMHO: do we have to be
so selfish/pedantic? Can't we sometimes 'donate' a little bit to our
'older' bsd cousins or half-brothers? I think, it could be like this:

- if our changes are minor and authors of these changes don't mind
the file could stay BSD licensed only; plus we ask BSD to let it be
dual licensed (but no big hassle);

- otherwise, we should always distinctly mark all GPL parts.

Jarek P.

PS: there is probably some mess with gmail addresses in this thread.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux