Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>>>I do think you need to allow people to select GPLv2 only. >>>> >>> > The Linux Kernel is currently under GPLv2 and we just wanted to follow > Linus' mind and so we referenced the COPYING file which many other > source does as well. Indeed it was a hard thing to make our code > available under GPL (as creating and publishing open source software is > really no a usual thing for the Volkswagen rights department). So i > discussed with the rights department about several disclaimers inside > the current Kernel (especially the stuff that has been signed off by > companies like IBM, Motorola, etc.). In this process it turned out to be > the best to license the code under "Dual BSD/GPL" as it grants more > rights to the programmer (including ourselves) than a GPL only license. > I assume this was the intention from IBM, Motorola and all the others > also. Btw. inside the Kernel context it behaves exactly like GPL code > (like all the other dual license code). > > So i really can't see any problem here. If so there would have been a > big discussion about the other "Dual BSD/GPL" code.
Yoshifuji's point was that the license seems to contradict itself, it says you may choose GPL, but have to retain BSD. And that is not about Dual BSD/GPL but about the specific wording. /me runs and refrains from the discussion as promised :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
