lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:40:26AM +0530, pradeep singh rautela wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:37AM +0530, pradeep [snip]
> > > Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
> > > Linux kernel sources?
> >
> > Are you somehow not believing the files that we have in the tree that
> > are licensed this way?
> > > I think it is GPLv2 only.
> >
> > Licensing questions would be better off asked to lawyers, not
> > programmers. Would you ask a random group of lawyers on a public
> > mailing list medical questions and trust their responses?
>
> Um... apologies Greg.I did not mean that in any sense.I am a
> programmer not a lawyer. I am asking to get clear understanding of the
> licensing issues and I myself do not have any good understanding on
> dual licensing Vs GPLv2 licensing in Linux kernel.

I share Greg's opinion that this list is not the place for getting or
giving legal advice. Please _do_ consult a lawyer.
In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
between two licenses. If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
(including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
GPLv2 only.

Thanks,
Hans



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-29 08:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans