[Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[pradeep singh rautela]

Hi All,

A small query.
Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
Linux kernel sources?
I think it is GPLv2 only.

So does this means any dual licensed files should be aptly GPLv2 only?

Thanks,
       --Pradeep

ps :- please CC me as I am not subscribed to the list.
-- 
Pradeep Singh Rautela
http://eagain.wordpress.com
http://emptydomain.googlepages.com

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:37AM +0530, pradeep singh rautela wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> A small query.
> Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
> Linux kernel sources?

Are you somehow not believing the files that we have in the tree that
are licensed this way?

> I think it is GPLv2 only.

Licensing questions would be better off asked to lawyers, not
programmers.  Would you ask a random group of lawyers on a public
mailing list medical questions and trust their responses?

good luck,

greg k-h

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[pradeep singh rautela]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:37AM +0530, pradeep [snip]
>  > Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
>  > Linux kernel sources?
>
>  Are you somehow not believing the files that we have in the tree that
>  are licensed this way?
>  > I think it is GPLv2 only.
>
>  Licensing questions would be better off asked to lawyers, not
>  programmers.  Would you ask a random group of lawyers on a public
>  mailing list medical questions and trust their responses?

Um... apologies Greg.I did not mean that in any sense.I am a
programmer not a lawyer. I am asking to get clear understanding of the
licensing issues and I myself do not have any good understanding on
dual licensing Vs GPLv2 licensing in Linux kernel.

Thought what's better than hearing it straight from the dragon's mouth!!!.

Sorry for the noise.

Thanks,
         --Pradeep
>
>  good luck,
>
>  greg k-h
>



-- 
Pradeep Singh Rautela
http://eagain.wordpress.com
http://emptydomain.googlepages.com

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[Hans J. Koch]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:40:26AM +0530, pradeep singh rautela wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:37AM +0530, pradeep [snip]
> >  > Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
> >  > Linux kernel sources?
> >
> >  Are you somehow not believing the files that we have in the tree that
> >  are licensed this way?
> >  > I think it is GPLv2 only.
> >
> >  Licensing questions would be better off asked to lawyers, not
> >  programmers.  Would you ask a random group of lawyers on a public
> >  mailing list medical questions and trust their responses?
> 
> Um... apologies Greg.I did not mean that in any sense.I am a
> programmer not a lawyer. I am asking to get clear understanding of the
> licensing issues and I myself do not have any good understanding on
> dual licensing Vs GPLv2 licensing in Linux kernel.

I share Greg's opinion that this list is not the place for getting or
giving legal advice. Please _do_ consult a lawyer.
In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
between two licenses. If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
(including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
GPLv2 only.

Thanks,
Hans

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[pradeep singh rautela]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Hans J. Koch <hjk@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:40:26AM +0530, pradeep singh rautela wrote:
>  > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
>  > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:37AM +0530, pradeep [snip]
>  > >  > Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
>  > >  > Linux kernel sources?
>  > >
>  > >  Are you somehow not believing the files that we have in the tree that
>  > >  are licensed this way?
>  > >  > I think it is GPLv2 only.
>  > >
>  > >  Licensing questions would be better off asked to lawyers, not
>  > >  programmers.  Would you ask a random group of lawyers on a public
>  > >  mailing list medical questions and trust their responses?
>  >
>  > Um... apologies Greg.I did not mean that in any sense.I am a
>  > programmer not a lawyer. I am asking to get clear understanding of the
>  > licensing issues and I myself do not have any good understanding on
>  > dual licensing Vs GPLv2 licensing in Linux kernel.
>
>  I share Greg's opinion that this list is not the place for getting or
>  giving legal advice. Please _do_ consult a lawyer.
>  In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
>  between two licenses. If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
>  (including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
>  GPLv2 only.

Thanks Hans.That clears things for a newbie like me.

Regards,
    --Pradeep
>
>  Thanks,
>  Hans
>
>



-- 
Pradeep Singh Rautela
http://eagain.wordpress.com
http://emptydomain.googlepages.com

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[Bart Van Assche]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:37 AM, pradeep singh rautela
<rautelap@gmail.com> wrote:
>  A small query.
>  Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
>  Linux kernel sources?
>  I think it is GPLv2 only.
>
>  So does this means any dual licensed files should be aptly GPLv2 only?

There are already source files in the Linux kernel that are dual
licensed. See e.g. drivers/infiniband/core/verbs.c. Note: not all
licenses are compatible. License compatibility is indeed not a topic
for the LKML mailing list.

Bart.

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[Alan Cox]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:07:37 +0530
"pradeep singh rautela" <rautelap@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> A small query.
> Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
> Linux kernel sources?

The copy you submit to the kernel needs to be GPL. How you choose to
licence it in addition is your business (assuming it is all your own
work). Various drivers in the kernel (eg much of infiniband and ACPI) are
issued by their authors with multiple licences for different projects.

Alan

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[pradeep singh rautela]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:07:37 +0530
>
> "pradeep singh rautela" <rautelap@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi All,
>  >
>  > A small query.
>  > Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
>  > Linux kernel sources?
>
>  The copy you submit to the kernel needs to be GPL. How you choose to
>  licence it in addition is your business (assuming it is all your own
>  work). Various drivers in the kernel (eg much of infiniband and ACPI) are
>  issued by their authors with multiple licences for different projects.

Thank you for kind explanation, Alan.
That helped a lot.

Regards,
   --Pradeep
>
>  Alan
>



-- 
Pradeep Singh Rautela
http://eagain.wordpress.com
http://emptydomain.googlepages.com

RE: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[David Schwartz]

> In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
> between two licenses.

Dual licensing gives every recipient both licenses from the original author.
You can choose which license you will obtain rights from.

> If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
> (including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
> GPLv2 only.

Really? Which license or law gives you the right to change the licensing
terms on code you didn't write? At least in the United States, you cannot
change the licensing terms on someone else's code absent a written
re-licensing agreement.

Every recipient of dual-licensed creative works or elements of works can
obtain rights from either license. You only need comply with the
requirements of one of the licenses to obtain rights from it. If you
redistribute the code, every recipient gets the same rights you got from the
original authors of every creative element you redistribute.

The distributor can choose by which license he obtains the right to
distribute, but this has no effect on the license his recipients get! (This
should be common sense. If you buy a music CD from Amazon, do you think how
Amazon got the right to sell you the CD should have an effect on what you
can do with the CD?)

You can remove the BSD license notice, because the GPL gives you that right
(it only requires you to retain notices that refer to "this License", the
GPL, not other licenses). But removing a license *notice* does not change
the license. (That should be common sense too.)

If you modify the code, of course, they only get the rights you choose to
give them to anything you added (assuming it is sufficiently creative to
warrant copyright protection). Nobody can grant other people rights to your
code that you don't want to grant. But you cannot add or subtract licensing
terms to code you did not write (at least, neither the GPL nor the BSD
license give you this right). The license grant is direct from the original
author to the ultimate recipient.

The GPL makes this explicit in section 6, "Each time you redistribute the
Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these
terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

The BSD license does not make this explicit, but there is no other legal way
it could work. The BSD license, of course, permits you to impose further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of rights to the modifications you
made while the GPL does not.

DS

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[Pavel Machek]

On Thu 2008-05-01 07:59:54, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> > In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
> > between two licenses.
> 
> Dual licensing gives every recipient both licenses from the original author.
> You can choose which license you will obtain rights from.
> 
> > If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
> > (including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
> > GPLv2 only.
> 
> Really? Which license or law gives you the right to change the licensing
> terms on code you didn't write? At least in the United States, you cannot

You don't change licensing. You got choice of two licenses, and you
selected one. GPL gives you right to remove the BSD licensing terms
you did not choose.

(People still can use the code under BSD license _if_ they know it was
originally BSD/GPL.. as long as you don't modify it).
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

RE: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[David Schwartz]

> On Thu 2008-05-01 07:59:54, David Schwartz wrote:

> > In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
> > between two licenses.

> > Dual licensing gives every recipient both licenses from the
> > original author.
> > You can choose which license you will obtain rights from.
> >
> > > If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
> > > (including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
> > > GPLv2 only.

> > Really? Which license or law gives you the right to change the licensing
> > terms on code you didn't write? At least in the United States,
> > you cannot

> You don't change licensing. You got choice of two licenses, and you
> selected one. GPL gives you right to remove the BSD licensing terms
> you did not choose.

GPL gives you the right to remove the BSD licensing *TERMS*, but this has no
effect on the actual license. The works do not become GPLv2 only just
because you removed the licensing terms.

> (People still can use the code under BSD license _if_ they know it was
> originally BSD/GPL.. as long as you don't modify it).

Exactly. So you *cannot* change the license, you can only remove the
licensing terms. And even if you do modify it, that still has no effect on
the available licenses for any creative elements you did not author.

"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions."

For both the GPL and the BSD license, anyone who receives covered works or
elements receives the offered licenses directly from the original author.
There is nothing you can do to change this.

Neither the BSD license nor the GPL license allow you to in any way modify
the license or licenses offered by anyone else to creative elements they
authored. In the United States, at least, this is not even possible without
a written re-licensing agreement. The licenses always flow from each
creative element's original author to the final end user. Distributors
simply provide copies of the works, they do *NOT* relicense them. People who
modify the works simply add and license other creative elements, they do not
relicense the existing ones.

DS

Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
> > > between two licenses.
> 
> > > Dual licensing gives every recipient both licenses from the
> > > original author.
> > > You can choose which license you will obtain rights from.
> > >
> > > > If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
> > > > (including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
> > > > GPLv2 only.
> 
> > > Really? Which license or law gives you the right to change the licensing
> > > terms on code you didn't write? At least in the United States,
> > > you cannot
> 
> > You don't change licensing. You got choice of two licenses, and you
> > selected one. GPL gives you right to remove the BSD licensing terms
> > you did not choose.
> 
> GPL gives you the right to remove the BSD licensing *TERMS*, but this has no
> effect on the actual license. The works do not become GPLv2 only just
> because you removed the licensing terms.

Agreed.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html