From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from tur.go2.pl ([193.17.41.50]:48434 "EHLO tur.go2.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755218AbXH3I1f (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:27:35 -0400 Received: from poczta.o2.pl (mx12.go2.pl [193.17.41.142]) by tur.go2.pl (o2.pl Mailer 2.0.1) with ESMTP id 382C123167D for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:27:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:26:53 +0200 From: Jarek Poplawski To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jon Smirl , "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" , Christoph Hellwig , Jiri Slaby , linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 Message-ID: <20070830082652.GA2669@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200708292137.48834.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.