[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070829204529.66ce1bcb@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:45:29 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@...il.com>
Cc: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
"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
> Aren't patches made against the kernel GPL'd if the author doesn't
> explicitly grant them more liberal BSD license in addition?
That would be the normal assumption.
> The problem then comes in taking the patches that were only made
> available against GPL code and reshipping them under the BSD license
> without the author explicitly agreeing to this.
>
> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported
> from BSD, how do you license it?
See the acpi codebase for a worked example.
Alan
-
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