[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080429062627.GA3195@local>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:26:27 +0200
From: "Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>
To: pradeep singh rautela <rautelap@...il.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:40:26AM +0530, pradeep singh rautela wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:37AM +0530, pradeep [snip]
> > > Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
> > > Linux kernel sources?
> >
> > Are you somehow not believing the files that we have in the tree that
> > are licensed this way?
> > > I think it is GPLv2 only.
> >
> > Licensing questions would be better off asked to lawyers, not
> > programmers. Would you ask a random group of lawyers on a public
> > mailing list medical questions and trust their responses?
>
> Um... apologies Greg.I did not mean that in any sense.I am a
> programmer not a lawyer. I am asking to get clear understanding of the
> licensing issues and I myself do not have any good understanding on
> dual licensing Vs GPLv2 licensing in Linux kernel.
I share Greg's opinion that this list is not the place for getting or
giving legal advice. Please _do_ consult a lawyer.
In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
between two licenses. If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
(including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
GPLv2 only.
Thanks,
Hans
--
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