IANAL, but: Igor Sobrado <igor@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> writes:Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just be equal to GPL. Now, dual BSD/GPL equals BSD. OTOH I'd probable leave the original licence text, something like: The actual licence conditions: GPL or BSD or whatever. Portions of this file were licenced under: [the original licence text, not valid as a licence for current file] WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten - it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal requirement, though. -- Krzysztof Halasa -
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Justin C. Sherrill | Re: pkgsrc bulk build and tiff |
| Jeremy Allison | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Roland Dreier | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Matt Thomas | Re: Add a MAP_ALIGNED flag for mmap(2). |
| Vsevolod Stakhov | Unicode support in iso9660. |
| Jaromir Dolecek | Re: Speeding up fork/wait path |
| matthew green | re: merge of freebsd eventhandler |
git: | |
| Petr Janda | KDE and OpenSSL = Broken |
| sam | Re: Loader not found |
| Erick Perez | Re: dragonfly pdf documentation |
| Michel Talon | Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools] |
