From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:45:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20070830134506.GB2778@ff.dom.local> References: <20070829204529.66ce1bcb@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jiri Slaby , linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Xavier Bestel , Jiri Slaby To: Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from mx2.go2.pl ([193.17.41.42]:38691 "EHLO poczta.o2.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754057AbXH3Nnp (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:43:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070829204529.66ce1bcb@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 30-08-2007 13:59, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:13 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: > >> How about asking for changes to be dual-licenced too ? > > In theory, that could work, but in practice relying on functions that > the Linux kernel offers in GPLv2-only headers etc. will make the result > GPLv2 anyway, and disentangling it would be a nightmare. > Why? Very good point, but, in my opinion, it should be still resonable for both sides: it simply means such changes are mostly unusable for the other side, but nobody is going to waste time for marking all these places, or care about suing if accidentally the changes, after some adaptation, are usable for the other side. Unless you think or know that "#include xyz" or "print_linux_way()" should add more than these (maybe unusable) words or lines only? Jarek P.