On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put > > BSD-License > > only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking > > about. > > Actually it is not. > > Dual BSD/GPL licence essentially means BSD, because rights given by > BSD are a superset of these by GPL.
Actually, I was pointing out a logical fallacy. I'll spell it out long here so everyone can see the point I was trying to make. Person A writes a device driver and releases it under a dual license. Person B modifies said device driver and licenses his changes under only one of the licenses on the device driver. Nobody complains. Person C modifies the same device driver and licenses his changes under the other license on the device driver. People start complaining. In this case either the actions of both persons B and C are legal - in which case neither person B or person C is likely to lose a lawsuit (or even face one) - or they are illegal, in which case the second a lawsuit is brought against person C, the same lawsuit must be brought against person B. The exact nature of the licenses and whether one is a superset or subset of the other doesn't matter. Either the action of making modifications licensed solely under one or the other of the two licenses on the original code-base is illegal or it isn't. <snip out the straw-man> > The other thing is copyright notices. I think one can't legally > alter someone else's licence conditions (in his/her name), unless > something like that is explicitly permitted. Fully agreed. I've even said such myself. > However, we're talking about derivative works. A derivative > work may be, for example, GPL-licenced: > > "Copyright (C) 1234 Joe the GPL lover > licenced under the GPL as published" > > but could lawfully use code originally licenced under BSD: > > "Portions copyright (C) 1234 Bill the BSD lover > originally licenced under no-ad BSD" > > Thus his (Joe's) work is GPL only, but Bill's licence notice is > intact as required by it (BSD). I've suggested that such be done in the future - if just because it *IS* how it should be done. > > IANAL, maybe you (all of us) should consult one if required. Would cost me money to consult a lawyer over this, but I do have a few friends that have completed law school and are waiting on the results of the BAR. They have told me that they are not legally allowed to dispense legal advice - but I got around that by asking them to recount what the law actually says. Apparently the above suggestion would meet the letter of the law. DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
