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  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]
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:40:22 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <>
To:	Alan Cox <>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <>, GeunSik Lim <>,
	Zhaolei <>,
	Wu Fengguang <>,
	Jesper Juhl <>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
	Adrian Bunk <>,
	Harvey Harrison <>,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <>,
	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,
	Lai Jiangshan <>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <>,,
	Dominique Toupin <>,
	Michel Dagenais <>,
	Pierre-Marc Fournier <>
Subject: Re: Relicensing tracepoints and markers to Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL
 v2,headers to Dual BSD/GPL

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:17 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Can  we re-distribute with dual license (e.g: bsd/gplv2 or lgpl
> > > 2.1/gplv2)   about some source of linux kernel source? I think that
> > > linux kernel source is GPLv2 only. Frankly speaking, I am not know
> > > exactly about  legal issues of your questions.
> > 
> > Yes, the legality of such relicensing is questionable as that code was 
> > never developed outside of the kernel but as part of the kernel.
> We have lots of dual licensed code in the kernel. The copy in kernel may
> well only act as GPLv2 but the copy outside has other licences (Linus for
> example relicensed some of his early locking primitive/atomic bits for
> the Mozilla folks)

>>From what I know (IANAL disclaimer) is that the Author of the code has
the sole right (or employer of said Author) to decide what the license
is. Not what project the code is used in. Unless there's some contract
signed (like for most GNU projects).

If you wrote the code, you have the right (or your employer) to pick and
choose what license it is. You can change the license later on, but of
course the code that went out under one license will stay under that
license. But new releases can have the license change if all authors

> > So for those two grounds i cannot give my permission for this 
> > relicensing, sorry.
> One comment here - and one to be careful of for relicensing purposes. In
> most parts of the world if you were paid by an employer to produce the
> code that the request relates to then the rights to it belong solely to
> the employer. Permission (or refusal) from the code author may well be
> meaningless because such permission must come from the employer and right
> owner in question (so IBM, Red Hat etc) in those cases and not the author.

Correct, and that is why I went to Red Hat legal for this decision and I
did not make it myself. I also (previously) listed the Red Hat employees
that this decision covers. Red Hat has already given permission for the
GPLv2/LGPL change.

-- Steve

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists