> - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the licenseThis is absolute nonsense. By default, you can remove a license if you want to. This is why both the GPL and the BSD licenses have clauses requiring you to leave them in. A file that is under a dual license may be used under either the GPL license or the BSD license. Neither license requires you to retain the *other* license in the file. So there is absolutely no reason you cannot remove one license or the other. To argue otherwise is to argue that you need to comply with *both* licenses in a dual-licensed file to get the rights granted by either, and that's nonsense. You cannot, of course, modify a license and expect your modified license to apply to protectable elements you didn't author. And anyone who receives modified versions of the file still has all the rights the original authors grant them. Let's perform a thought experiment for a moment. Suppose the BSD license explicitly said you could remove the licensing clause if you wanted to. Would you still argue that you couldn't remove it even though it says you can? Well, the GPL says you can modify anything you want to, except *THAT* license. This means you can remove any other license notifications you want. Note that your license editing or removing has no effect on the rights people actually get except to your code. DS -
| Cliffe | Re: [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scanning |
| Amit K. Arora | [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Radu Rendec | Endianness problem with u32 classifier hash masks |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
git: | |
