Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758284AbXH3IZn (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:25:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755520AbXH3IZd (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:25:33 -0400 Received: from mx12.go2.pl ([193.17.41.142]:35441 "EHLO poczta.o2.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755458AbXH3IZc (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:25:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:26:53 +0200 From: Jarek Poplawski To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jon Smirl , "Valdis\.Kletnieks\@vt\.edu" , Christoph Hellwig , Jiri Slaby , linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 Message-ID: <20070830082652.GA2669@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708292137.48834.mb@bu3sch.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1545 Lines: 35 On 29-08-2007 21:37, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote: >> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported >> from BSD, how do you license it? > > I think it's a valid assumption, if we say that the author > of the patch read the license header of a file and agreed with it. > So the patch is licensed to whatever the fileheader says. And if > there's none, it's licensed with the COPYING terms. > If a patch author likes some other license conditions, he must > explicitely add them with the patch to the file, saying that this > and that part have these and those conditions. Of course they must > be compatible with the original license. > I didn't track this thread from the beginning, so maybe I repeat somebody's ideas (probably like above), but IMHO: do we have to be so selfish/pedantic? Can't we sometimes 'donate' a little bit to our 'older' bsd cousins or half-brothers? I think, it could be like this: - if our changes are minor and authors of these changes don't mind the file could stay BSD licensed only; plus we ask BSD to let it be dual licensed (but no big hassle); - otherwise, we should always distinctly mark all GPL parts. Regards, Jarek P. PS: there is probably some mess with gmail addresses in this thread. - 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/