From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH]: altq HFSC port Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:27:06 +0100 Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4015943A.8020104@trash.net> References: <1075128375.1746.392.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040126.102429.55841404.davem@redhat.com> <401560A6.7030803@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <401560A6.7030803@trash.net> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: > > This mail from Alan states that BSD without advertising clause linked > with GPL ends up as GPL anyways, so I'm not sure if there is a problem. > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.2/0924.html > I'm going to look for some more information before bothering the > authors with License stuff again. > I've tried to get some more information and clear up my misconceptions, I can of course not just relicense the existing code. Since mixing GPL and BSD without advertising clause is not a problem if the resulting code _as a whole_ is GPL, I think I only have to mark the pre-existing code being subject to the original license. The code as a whole is not dual-licensed, so MODULE_LICENSE stays GPL. Does that sound reasonable ? Best regards, Patrick