Re: Wasting our Freedom

[Hannah Schroeter <hannah@schlund.de>]

Hi!

On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:

>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
>> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.

>> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
>> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...

>> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
>> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
>> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
>> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
>> in one of the licenses.

>That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows 
>distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can 
>follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. 
>And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and 
>ignore the GPL)

>It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more 
>agreeable.

The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just
choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms
altogether).

>I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused.

Refrain from personal attacks.

Regards,

Hannah.