From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:53:04 +0200 Message-ID: <46F94B00.3060006@trash.net> References: <20070925122029.15989.0@janus.isnogud.escape.de> <20070925122244.15989.5@janus.isnogud.escape.de> <20070925.222631.116063075.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <46F91F64.2050008@trash.net> <46F94B91.5020209@hartkopp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?YOSHIFUJI_Hideaki_/_=C8=A3=D1=C0?= , Urs Thuermann , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, joe@perches.com, tglx@linutronix.de, oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de To: Oliver Hartkopp Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:41116 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752189AbXIYSCh (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:02:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46F94B91.5020209@hartkopp.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>>>I do think you need to allow people to select GPLv2 only. >>>> >>> > The Linux Kernel is currently under GPLv2 and we just wanted to follow > Linus' mind and so we referenced the COPYING file which many other > source does as well. Indeed it was a hard thing to make our code > available under GPL (as creating and publishing open source software is > really no a usual thing for the Volkswagen rights department). So i > discussed with the rights department about several disclaimers inside > the current Kernel (especially the stuff that has been signed off by > companies like IBM, Motorola, etc.). In this process it turned out to be > the best to license the code under "Dual BSD/GPL" as it grants more > rights to the programmer (including ourselves) than a GPL only license. > I assume this was the intention from IBM, Motorola and all the others > also. Btw. inside the Kernel context it behaves exactly like GPL code > (like all the other dual license code). > > So i really can't see any problem here. If so there would have been a > big discussion about the other "Dual BSD/GPL" code. Yoshifuji's point was that the license seems to contradict itself, it says you may choose GPL, but have to retain BSD. And that is not about Dual BSD/GPL but about the specific wording. /me runs and refrains from the discussion as promised :)