linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070615213232.GZ21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:32:32 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
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 Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:04:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > 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?

It certainly sounds like a reasonable first assumption; unless you are
aware of couterexamples, you probably would be able at least to prove
that you've acted in good faith if somebody starts to complain.  IANAL,
obviously, so ask FSF lawyers.  Really.  Especially if you are doing that
for a text associated with FSF-LA in any way.  That's what they are for.
-
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/