Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755170AbXKCMa0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 08:30:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753586AbXKCMaJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 08:30:09 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:60164 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754603AbXKCMaH (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 08:30:07 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Remigiusz Modrzejewski Subject: Policy on dual licensing? Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 12:14:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-ip38-174.crowley.pl X-stopkeylogger: don't use broken software X-Posting-License: http://ppl.7thguard.net/PPL X-Homesite: http://lrem.net/ User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1894 Lines: 37 Hi, We've all seen the last flame war about Linux stealing BSD code. Due to Theo's bad wording whole discussion rolled around the question about legality of this, a big waste of time (question answered a thousand times). Still, the question about ethics is quite valid... There are over four hundred C source files that mention BSD, but only a hundred of them is dual licensed. Of course not all mentions of BSD mean the file is derived from it, as well as not each such licensed file must use the acronym. No matter what the scale really is, the problem exists. What I suppose is that people porting BSD code to Linux don't mean closing the doors for back-porting changes. They are simply unaware or forget about the possibility of dual licensing. Obviously, each submitter should read Documentation/SubmittingDrivers, where it is explicitly stated. Yet humans are prone to forgetting, so this may seem not enough. What I propose is implementing a policy on accepting such code. According to it, every time a maintainer is considering a driver that is derived from BSD and licensed GPL-only, should request for dual licensing before accepting the patch. If the submitter is reluctant to do so - what can we do, it's better to have this inside this way than not at all. However, this should minimize such cases and, hopefully, satisfy the claims about Linux maintainers not doing all that they could to make the world a better place. Best regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski -- Remigiusz 'lRem' Modrzejewski I might be *extremely unresponsive* at the From: email... Contact: http://lrem.net/pages/view/about Feel free to correct my English. - 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/