| 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: <m3fxzno3fr.fsf@maximus.localdomain> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:37:28 +0100 From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> To: Remigiusz Modrzejewski <lkml.only@...net.org.pl> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Policy on dual licensing? Remigiusz Modrzejewski <lkml.only@...net.org.pl> writes: > What I propose is implementing a policy on accepting such code. > According to it, every time a maintainer is considering a driver > that is derived from BSD and licensed GPL-only, should request > for dual licensing before accepting the patch. If the submitter is > reluctant to do so - what can we do, it's better to have this inside > this way than not at all. However, this should minimize such cases > and, hopefully, satisfy the claims about Linux maintainers not doing > all that they could to make the world a better place. It doesn't make sense in general. Being derived from *BSD may mean only a tiny fragment comes from *BSD. I can't see any valid reason to force/ask the author to publish his/her code under BSD (GPL + BSD = BSD) instead of GPLv2 as used by the whole Linux. There are exceptions, of course - if you take a *BSD project and include it with no/minor changes it makes sense to use BSD licence, because we really want to cooperate, and because we don't have to fear "evil corporations" taking our code (because it's mostly not "ours"). -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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