lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: GPL weasels and the atheros stink
    Date
    On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
    > Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> writes:
    > > Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
    > > BSD-License
    > > only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
    > > about.
    >
    > Actually it is not.
    >
    > Dual BSD/GPL licence essentially means BSD, because rights given by
    > BSD are a superset of these by GPL.

    Actually, I was pointing out a logical fallacy. I'll spell it out long here so
    everyone can see the point I was trying to make.

    Person A writes a device driver and releases it under a dual license.
    Person B modifies said device driver and licenses his changes under only one
    of the licenses on the device driver. Nobody complains.
    Person C modifies the same device driver and licenses his changes under the
    other license on the device driver. People start complaining.

    In this case either the actions of both persons B and C are legal - in which
    case neither person B or person C is likely to lose a lawsuit (or even face
    one) - or they are illegal, in which case the second a lawsuit is brought
    against person C, the same lawsuit must be brought against person B.

    The exact nature of the licenses and whether one is a superset or subset of
    the other doesn't matter. Either the action of making modifications licensed
    solely under one or the other of the two licenses on the original code-base
    is illegal or it isn't.

    <snip out the straw-man>
    > The other thing is copyright notices. I think one can't legally
    > alter someone else's licence conditions (in his/her name), unless
    > something like that is explicitly permitted.

    Fully agreed. I've even said such myself.

    > However, we're talking about derivative works. A derivative
    > work may be, for example, GPL-licenced:
    >
    > "Copyright (C) 1234 Joe the GPL lover
    > licenced under the GPL as published"
    >
    > but could lawfully use code originally licenced under BSD:
    >
    > "Portions copyright (C) 1234 Bill the BSD lover
    > originally licenced under no-ad BSD"
    >
    > Thus his (Joe's) work is GPL only, but Bill's licence notice is
    > intact as required by it (BSD).

    I've suggested that such be done in the future - if just because it *IS* how
    it should be done.

    >
    > IANAL, maybe you (all of us) should consult one if required.

    Would cost me money to consult a lawyer over this, but I do have a few friends
    that have completed law school and are waiting on the results of the BAR.
    They have told me that they are not legally allowed to dispense legal
    advice - but I got around that by asking them to recount what the law
    actually says.

    Apparently the above suggestion would meet the letter of the law.

    DRH

    --
    Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-09-03 20:15    [W:0.026 / U:1.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site