Hi! On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: >On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> 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. The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms altogether). >I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused. Refrain from personal attacks. Regards, Hannah. - 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/
