| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:57:30 +0200 From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> To: Igor Sobrado <igor@...dmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@...il.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing IANAL, but: Igor Sobrado <igor@...dmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> writes: > So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a > developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a > single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it? Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just be equal to GPL. Now, dual BSD/GPL equals BSD. OTOH I'd probable leave the original licence text, something like: The actual licence conditions: GPL or BSD or whatever. Portions of this file were licenced under: [the original licence text, not valid as a licence for current file] WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten - it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal requirement, though. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists