linux-kernel - Re: Wasting our Freedom

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: <20070916230936.GC18232@stusta.de>
Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:09:36 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>
Cc:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:37:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> > Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose 
> > the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
> 
> You can choose under which license you would like to receive the right to modify or distribute the code. But you cannot change the license that code itself is covered by.

You can choose the licence under which you distribute the code.

It's obvious that everyone else receiving the dual licenced code still 
can choose for himself.

> > Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for
> > _this_ code. [2]
> 
> He is quite right. You cannot choose the license under which someone else's code is offered. It would "break the law" not in the sense that you would be breaking the law, in the sense that it's impossible because the law does not allow it.
> 
> You can, however, remove the BSD license notice if you'd like. While the BSD license prohibits you from removing it, you may choose to obtain the right to remove it from the GPL. The GPL does not prohibit removing a BSD license and explicitly grants you the right to make all modifications that it does not prohibit.
> 
> Note that this removal has no effect on the license on the original code.
> 
> Theo is right, you cannot choose the license on _this_ code. You can, of course, control the license on code that you contribute. Nothing prevents a derivative work from being under a different license from the original work.

It would have helped if you would have read the email I gave a link to...

Theo was saying in his email:

<-- snip  -->

In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize
what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a
modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the
authors.  Alan asks "So whats the problem ?".  Well, Alan, I must
caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law.

<--  snip  -->

Theo claims quite clearly that removing the BSD licence notice when 
modifying BSD/GPL dual licenced code would break the law.

> DS

cu
Adrian

BTW: It is considered impolite on linux-kernel to remove Cc's.

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/