On 29-08-2007 21:37, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote: >> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported >> from BSD, how do you license it? > > I think it's a valid assumption, if we say that the author > of the patch read the license header of a file and agreed with it. > So the patch is licensed to whatever the fileheader says. And if > there's none, it's licensed with the COPYING terms. > If a patch author likes some other license conditions, he must > explicitely add them with the patch to the file, saying that this > and that part have these and those conditions. Of course they must > be compatible with the original license. > I didn't track this thread from the beginning, so maybe I repeat somebody's ideas (probably like above), but IMHO: do we have to be so selfish/pedantic? Can't we sometimes 'donate' a little bit to our 'older' bsd cousins or half-brothers? I think, it could be like this: - if our changes are minor and authors of these changes don't mind the file could stay BSD licensed only; plus we ask BSD to let it be dual licensed (but no big hassle); - otherwise, we should always distinctly mark all GPL parts. Regards, Jarek P. PS: there is probably some mess with gmail addresses in this thread. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
