Re: [PATCH]: altq HFSC port

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jamie,
thanks for making this clear.

As the GPL specifically states that "identifable sections"
retain their license, I guess their is no need to repeat it
in the source file. Regarding the politeness (I don't want
to be impolite), the authors are informed and support getting
HFSC into Linux.

Dave, is that good enough for you ?

Best regards,
Patrick


Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 
> Yes, the end-product Linux kernel (the combined work) is subject to
> the GPL.  You _do_ have the consent of the authors: their decision to
> release under the BSD-without-advertising license _is_ consent to
> incorporate it into a GPL work, just as it is consent to incorporate
> it into a closed source work.  Asking for their blessing is politeness.
> 
> When the authors release the code under the BSD-without-advertising
> clause, they are declaring that it's ok to use the code in lots of
> different ways.  One of those is that it's ok to re-release the code
> under GPL - the authors may not like that, but they have explicitly
> declared that you may to do it.
> 
> You can do that.
> Alternatively you can keep the code licensed under BSD-without-advertising.
> 
> When you combine BSD-without-advertising code with GPL code, the
> resulting combined work is covered by both licenses, and because the
> BSD-without-advertising permissions are a superset of the GPL
> permissions, the combined work is effectively covered by the GPL.
> 
> However, the BSD-without-advertising code retains its own license, and
> provided it remains an "identifiable section" of the program and "can
> be reasonably considered independent and separate" in itself, then
> anyone may copy that code from the combined work and use it according
> to the BSD-without-advertising license.  See clause 2, paragraph 5 of
> the GPL.  Unfortunately it is not 100% clear on this matter.
> 
> Whether that code remains independent and separate will depend on the
> changes made and the licensing of patches, which is a grey area
> because people don't tend to make the licensing of Linux patches
> clear.  Most likely, as soon as people make changes to the code within
> the context of Linux development, it may be assumed that the derived
> work (the hfsc code + patches from Linux authors) is covered by the GPL.
> 
> Btw, IANAL.
> -- Jamie
>