linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <200708292137.48834.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:37:48 +0200
From:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To:	"Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@...il.com>
Cc:	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"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

On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote:
> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported
> from BSD, how do you license it?

I think it's a valid assumption, if we say that the author
of the patch read the license header of a file and agreed with it.
So the patch is licensed to whatever the fileheader says. And if
there's none, it's licensed with the COPYING terms.
If a patch author likes some other license conditions, he must
explicitely add them with the patch to the file, saying that this
and that part have these and those conditions. Of course they must
be compatible with the original license.

-- 
Greetings Michael.
-
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/