[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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 <> 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.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-29 08:29    [W:0.036 / U:149.292 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site