Andreas Oberritter wrote: > Steven Toth wrote: >> Markus Rechberger wrote: >>> Great move Steven! Can we move the TDA10048 code over, maybe adding >>> a note that it's dual licensed would be nice? >> In principle yes. >> >> I'd like to see an example of dual license just to make sure it has no >> nasty side effects. >> >> Can you point me at one of your dual-license drivers so I can review the >> wording? > > AFAIK the biggest problem with dual licensing is that you cannot merge > patches from Linus' tree, because they are not dual licensed (unless, of > course, you'll get the permission from the contributors). That's also been my understanding in the past. As the copyright owner I'm legally entitled to generate a separate license for the code I originally merged into Linus's tree, though - correct? (Perhaps not any updates that were subsequently made to that code by the community). I guess this is would be seen legally as two pieces of code with two distinct licenses, not a dual license... or maybe I'm splitting hairs. Regardless, it will be an interest exercise to review the proposed dual license, even if nothing good can come from it. - Steve _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
