| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9e4733910708291101i3783a8b1l38f0d5cfb0c2863d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:01:34 -0400 From: "Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@...il.com> To: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> Cc: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>, "Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@...il.com>, linville@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 On 8/29/07, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote: > The heck with "good idea" - it's unclear to me if Jiri is even *allowed* > to remove the BSD/other license. Jiri can release *his* code as GPLv2 > only, but I suspect the files as a whole really should be dual BSD/GPLv2, > due to the numerous other stakeholders in those files. This mess has been occurring in the kernel for years. The DRM graphics drivers are used in both BSD and Linux. It is quite easy to contribute something to this code via LKML and think you are doing it under the GPL. Doesn't a patch against the kernel have to be GPL? When these patches get pulled back into BSD and distributed with it, did BSD get infected with the GPL? AFAIK this has never been legally sorted out. -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@...il.com - 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