From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:38659 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932514AbXIBBeP (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 21:34:15 -0400 Message-ID: <46DA1315.9060002@garzik.org> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:34:13 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Dixon CC: mureninc@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing References: <200709010140.l811eq9H005896@cvs.openbsd.org> <46D99FB7.6030505@garzik.org> <20070901205457.GK9260@stusta.de> <3A831845-B630-42AD-B52F-DC9EA2060BAE@dixongroup.net> In-Reply-To: <3A831845-B630-42AD-B52F-DC9EA2060BAE@dixongroup.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jason Dixon wrote: > Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must > remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your > license, but the original copyright and license permission remains > intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD > code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult > for the Linux brain share to absorb? Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing? Jeff