From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <tytso@thunk.org>
Cc: <bunk@kernel.org>,
       "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Wasting our Freedom
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:40:21 -0700
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCEFOGNAC.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20070917011914.GE5502@thunk.org>
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1374
Lines: 33


Theodore Tso wrote:

Essentially, I agree with you. My only disagremeent with you is that I think
the problem starts sooner:

> However, consider a file which was originally BSD licensed.  Now
> suppose it is modified (i.e., a derived work was created) and another
> author slaps on a BSD/GPL dual notice.  That's fine, so far; the BSD
> license on the original file permits that.  The new code is licensed
> under either BSD or GPL (user's choice), and the original code is
> under the BSD license, which is compatible with the GPL code, so
> regardless of whether the user choose the BSD or GPL license.

I would argue that it's really not so fine so far. You need to careful to
make sure that anybody who receives this file understands that they *must*
comply with the BSD license in addition to the GPL.

There choices are not "BSD or GPL" they are "BSD or BSD+GPL". They may
choose to comply with just the terms of the BSD license, or they may choose
to in addition require those who make further derivatives to comply with the
GPL *as* *well*.

But this is not really dual-licensed as you cannot choose just the GPL.

DS


-
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/