On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:37:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:You can choose the licence under which you distribute the code. It's obvious that everyone else receiving the dual licenced code still can choose for himself. It would have helped if you would have read the email I gave a link to... Theo was saying in his email: <-- snip --> In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the authors. Alan asks "So whats the problem ?". Well, Alan, I must caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law. <-- snip --> Theo claims quite clearly that removing the BSD licence notice when modifying BSD/GPL dual licenced code would break the law. cu Adrian BTW: It is considered impolite on linux-kernel to remove Cc's. -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Greg KH | Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
