On 30-08-2007 13:59, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:13 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
>
>> How about asking for changes to be dual-licenced too ?
>
> In theory, that could work, but in practice relying on functions that
> the Linux kernel offers in GPLv2-only headers etc. will make
Is it actually necessary to change the license? With the dual-license,
you can keep a single code-base for both BSD and Linux platforms, which
seems terribly important to me. It'd be awful to lose that. It would
be a maintenance nightmare for BSD. Is it even possible--in real life,
I mean--
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:13 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> How about asking for changes to be dual-licenced too ?
In theory, that could work, but in practice relying on functions that
the Linux kernel offers in GPLv2-only headers etc. will make the result
GPLv2 anyway, and disentangling it would b
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:26:52AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> PS: there is probably some mess with gmail addresses in this thread.
...or maybe it's OK... Sorry.
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTE
On 29-08-2007 21:37, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote:
>> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported
>> from BSD, how do you license it?
>
> I think it's a valid assumption, if we say that the author
> of the patch read the licens
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote:
> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported
> from BSD, how do you license it?
I think it's a valid assumption, if we say that the author
of the patch read the license header of a file and agreed with it.
So the patch i
> Aren't patches made against the kernel GPL'd if the author doesn't
> explicitly grant them more liberal BSD license in addition?
That would be the normal assumption.
> The problem then comes in taking the patches that were only made
> available against GPL code and reshipping them under the BSD
On 8/29/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > to remove the BSD/other license. Jiri can release *his* code as GPLv2
> > > only, but I suspect the files as a whole really should be dual BSD/GPLv2,
> > > due to the numerous other stakeholders in those files.
> >
> > This mess has been occur
> > to remove the BSD/other license. Jiri can release *his* code as GPLv2
> > only, but I suspect the files as a whole really should be dual BSD/GPLv2,
> > due to the numerous other stakeholders in those files.
>
> This mess has been occurring in the kernel for years. The DRM graphics
> drivers
On 8/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The heck with "good idea" - it's unclear to me if Jiri is even *allowed*
> to remove the BSD/other license. Jiri can release *his* code as GPLv2
> only, but I suspect the files as a whole really should be dual BSD/GPLv2,
> due to the nume
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:11:55 BST, Christoph Hellwig said:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > ath5k, license is GPLv2
> >
> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>
> Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
> done by the OpenBS
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 08:35 -0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 8/29/07, Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:00 -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >
> > > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
> >
> > Since the BSD people are already getting upset about (for variou
On 8/29/07, Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:00 -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>
> Since the BSD people are already getting upset about (for various
> reasons among which seem to be a clear non-understanding) I'd
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:00 -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
Since the BSD people are already getting upset about (for various
reasons among which seem to be a clear non-understanding) I'd suggest
changing it to:
+ * Parts of this file were original
On 8/28/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > ath5k, license is GPLv2
> >
> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>
> Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
> done by the OpenBSD f
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> ath5k, license is GPLv2
>
> The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to
work together with them on
ath5k, license is GPLv2
The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
commit 330c2ab9a53ddce27003218bd546034e8eeeff17
tree b24cecd991fbe3046d5c5269c61e0090427e4fd3
parent ceeaf6b9aac9daaa41ec38fbba3d2c1972af4470
author Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PR
17 matches
Mail list logo
