On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there was permission to do so.
There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices, you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient.
Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing terms (BSD).
A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a licence) then putting such a "both" GPL/BSD licence piece of code into OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent. Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it under one of the licences only.
I think that Theo explained this point clearly quite a few times in the last days.
And as we've already established the header files are quite different.
Is a simple change in the header files a reason to vindicate the people that changed the licensing terms? Obviously, it isn't.
Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very different things.
No, because this change is both rude and illegal. Igor - 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
