You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
including distributing the code under other licenses. The only
requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
whether that involves changes to the code. When I say "relicensing" I
mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't
mean deleting the old license.The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
changes. If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
just silly (in most cases).
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Justin Piszcz | exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x1 / SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen |
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
| Radu Rendec | htb parallelism on multi-core platforms |
