Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754895AbXIQL6S (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:58:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753166AbXIQL6E (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:58:04 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:3669 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753247AbXIQL6D (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:58:03 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: Wasting our Freedom Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:57:29 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20070917112004.GB31443@schlund.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:58:09 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:58:10 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2544 Lines: 57 > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > >[...] > > >If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one > >license notice > >from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that > >derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to > >every protectable element still in the distributed work. > But you may *not* remove the license notices on GPL/BSD dual-licensed > works. *Both* forbid removing the licensing terms. No, I'm sorry, this is not correct. The GPL gives you the right to remove the BSD license. Read the GPL and please tell me where it says you must keep the BSD license notice intact. > >2) You can remove a BSD license notice from BSD-only code. (The > >BSD license > >prohibits this.) > The BSD license prohibits this anyway, regardless of whether BSD is the > only license or not (dual-licensing). Heck, copyright law itself forbids > it unless explicitly allowed. It doesn't matter that the BSD license prohibits it, its terms only apply to you if you agree to it. Generally, you agree to it implicitly by doing something that only the BSD license could give you the right to do, such as modify or distribute a BSD-only work. But in the case of a dual-licensed work, you can obtain the right to modify or distribute it from the GPL. In that case, you can totally ignore anything the BSD license says. You are under no obligation to comply with it. As for copyright law prohibiting it, the GPL is quite clear about allowing it. The GPL permits all modifications except those it specifically restricts (and none of those rules would prohibit removing a BSD license). In fact, the GPL specifically prohibits the imposition of "additional restrictions". Copyright law permits you to impose all kinds of restrictions on what people can do with your work. However, when you offer a work under the GPL, you lose any right to insist that the work remain in any particular form or contain any particular elements, except the GPL itself. The GPL grants modification rights limited only by the restrictions in the GPL itself. You cannot use any form of subterfuge to get something into a GPL-compatible file that I cannot remove, by any means. (Other than the GPL license, of course.) See GPL section 6. 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/