[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ord4zxx732.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:04:33 -0300
From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>,
Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 03:18:24PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > *OR* inherits the default license of the project.
>>
>> You got any case law for this? Seriously, I could use this for
>> FSFLA's IRPF2007-Livre project.
>> http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/freeing-the-lion
> Umm... What other license choices are there?
Where does it say that there must be one?
> No specific case law, but I'd expect serious [eventual] trouble for
> somebody trying to slap some different license in such case.
Consider this (to make the freeing-the-lion story short):
Jar file with .class files, with a copy of LGPL in the root of the
tree. No other license anywhere to be seen. Is it safe to assume
the whole thing is under the LGPL?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@...dhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@...d.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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