Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760917AbXIQJNJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:13:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760626AbXIQJL3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:11:29 -0400 Received: from mxintern.schlund.de ([212.227.126.204]:63393 "EHLO mxintern.schlund.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760775AbXIQJL2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:11:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:10:38 +0200 From: Hannah Schroeter To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Adrian Bunk , "Can E. Acar" , misc@openbsd.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eben Moglen , Lawrence Lessig , "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Matt Norwood Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Message-ID: <20070917091038.GB23002@schlund.de> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Hazelton , Adrian Bunk , "Can E. Acar" , misc@openbsd.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eben Moglen , Lawrence Lessig , "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Matt Norwood References: <46ED7A8F.1020304@pro-g.com.tr> <20070916195909.GA18232@stusta.de> <20070916203926.GA17863@schlund.de> <200709161711.05836.dhazelton@enter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200709161711.05836.dhazelton@enter.net> Organization: Schlund + Partner AG X-UI-Msg-Verification: cac75a931cd950f3729695ac2889a9d8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1814 Lines: 45 Hi! On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: >On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: >> >>... >> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel >> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. >> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt >> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... >> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the >> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden >> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's >> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or >> in one of the licenses. >That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows >distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can >follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. >And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and >ignore the GPL) >It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more >agreeable. The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms altogether). >I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused. Refrain from personal attacks. Regards, Hannah. - 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/