On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:03 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote: > All of the files in drivers/char/drm really should have an explicit > dual MIT/GPL license on them too. The DRM project has been taking > patches back into DRM from LKML without making it clear that DRM is > MIT licensed. It might be construed that doing this has made DRM GPL > without that being the intention.
without explicit dual licensing this is a trap yeah... it's far far nicer to just make it explicit that it's dual licensed and that you expect all patches are also dual licensed unless they also remove one of the licenses (several dual licensed parts of the kernel have such language if you're looking for example text). Otherwise its very much an unclear situation and with licenses it's just better to be very explicit and clear. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
