hmm, on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:08:46AM -0700, David Schwartz said that
> > As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not
> > wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as
> > in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies
> > being allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B.
>
> You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep
> GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to
> modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the
> right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*.
>
> This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license
> notices has no effect on actual licenses.
but how do i know i have a bsd licensed file
if the license notice has been removed from it?
i know copyright applies to a file which has no (c) line in it,
because it's implicit. but licenses are not implicit, are they?
-f
--
treat each day as your last, one day you will be right.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
