On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:05:09PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> >Hi,

>

> >In order to make my mind about this subject...

>

> >You're complaining solely of the changes in files:

> >	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h

> >	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c

> >	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h

> >	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c

> >	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h

>

> >But not in files:

> >	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c

> >	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h

> >	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h

>

> >Right?

>

> >To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without

> >malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he

> >shouldn't.

>

> >In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:

> >	"at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD

> >	license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2

>

> >So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU

> >GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files

> >alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use

> >anymore.

>

> IMO no. For dual-licensing using "or", you may exert the rights granted

> by either of the licenses.

This is not the case.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157
The word is alternatively, not "logical or".
Regards,

Rui
--

P'tang!

Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?