On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:05:09PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > >Hi, > > >In order to make my mind about this subject... > > >You're complaining solely of the changes in files: > > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h > > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c > > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h > > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c > > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h > > >But not in files: > > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c > > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h > > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h > > >Right? > > >To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without > >malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he > >shouldn't. > > >In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: > > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD > > license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 > > >So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU > >GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files > >alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use > >anymore. > > IMO no. For dual-licensing using "or", you may exert the rights granted > by either of the licenses.
This is not the case. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157 The word is alternatively, not "logical or". Regards, Rui -- P'tang! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
