netdev - 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]

Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:45:29 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@...il.com>
Cc:	"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

> Aren't patches made against the kernel GPL'd if the author doesn't
> explicitly grant them more liberal BSD license in addition?

That would be the normal assumption.

> The problem then comes in taking the patches that were only made
> available against GPL code and reshipping them under the BSD license
> without the author explicitly agreeing to this.
> 
> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported
> from BSD, how do you license it?

See the acpi codebase for a worked example.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html