hmm, on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:08:46AM -0700, David Schwartz said that
quoted text
> > As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not
> > wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as
> > in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies
> > being allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B.
> 
> You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep
> GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to
> modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the
> right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*.
> 
> This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license
> notices has no effect on actual licenses.

but how do i know i have a bsd licensed file
if the license notice has been removed from it?

i know copyright applies to a file which has no (c) line in it,
because it's implicit.  but licenses are not implicit, are they?

-f
-- 
treat each day as your last, one day you will be right.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/