On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote: > Hi! > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: > >>... > >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel > >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. > > > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... > > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or > in one of the licenses.
That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and ignore the GPL) It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more agreeable. I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused. <snip> 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/
