On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
quoted text
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> >>...
> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
> >
> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
>
> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
> in one of the licenses.

That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows 
distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can 
follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. 
And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and 
ignore the GPL)

It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more 
agreeable.

I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused.

<snip>

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.