| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:40:21 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> To: <tytso@...nk.org> Cc: <bunk@...nel.org>, "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: Wasting our Freedom Theodore Tso wrote: Essentially, I agree with you. My only disagremeent with you is that I think the problem starts sooner: > However, consider a file which was originally BSD licensed. Now > suppose it is modified (i.e., a derived work was created) and another > author slaps on a BSD/GPL dual notice. That's fine, so far; the BSD > license on the original file permits that. The new code is licensed > under either BSD or GPL (user's choice), and the original code is > under the BSD license, which is compatible with the GPL code, so > regardless of whether the user choose the BSD or GPL license. I would argue that it's really not so fine so far. You need to careful to make sure that anybody who receives this file understands that they *must* comply with the BSD license in addition to the GPL. There choices are not "BSD or GPL" they are "BSD or BSD+GPL". They may choose to comply with just the terms of the BSD license, or they may choose to in addition require those who make further derivatives to comply with the GPL *as* *well*. But this is not really dual-licensed as you cannot choose just the GPL. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists