> On 8/28/07, Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Normally I wouldn't repeat undeadly stuff here on misc@, but I'm sure
> > many of you will want to know.
> >
> > http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634
> >
> >
> > And if you do this kind of thing, it's worth letting the rest of the
> > world in on this:
> > http://digg.com/linux_unix/Lnux_Driver_Violated_BSD_License
>
> I am currently having a discussion about dual licensing, and am a bit
> confused. Is Reyk and others working on this drivers code dual
> licensed (from the diff it doesn't seem like it is, since I see a BSD
> 3 Clause)? Also say I submit a patch for this driver, does that mean
> this will have to be dual licensed also or can I choose if it is BSD 3
> Clause or GPLv2?
Well, there are two parts to the Atheros driver.
Reyk's code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL. So there is no
issue with Reyk's code. He has explicitly stated that his code is not
dual-licenced. The file have no GPL on them. He's the author, he
said so. None else can add a GPL to it. (No matter how much Luis
begs and pleads and whines).
The other part of the driver was written by Sam Leffler. Sam's code,
though, is dual-licenced with a 4-term BSD'ish license (it has only 3
terms, but the wrong term was deleted, and the attribution term was
actually strengthened -- read the license). The GPL annotation in the
licenses says specifically --
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
Note that word "Alternatively".
That means "or".
That means that if anyone makes changes to that file and distributes it,
after their changes are in the file then EITHER license will apply.
Since it says "Alternatively" / "Or", we can simply take any of those
new changes UNDER THE LICENSE WE PREFER, and commit them to our file
which is NOT dual licensed. If they want to use the GPL to restrict
our use -- that is us, the original authors, see -- they should work
on seperate files.
Note there are some files out there that don't use words like "or" or
"alternatively" when they mix licenses. One must read what the
license says very carefully. Trying to brush everything into the same
simple catagories will get you nowhere.
As a commentary, it seems as if many people have tired of the "make my
own license" game, and now are playing the "mix licenses in my own
way" game. And the "interpret it in the way that is most beneficial
to me" game.
Simpler said, I don't know why they have to be such jerks. Luis in
particular has been ragging on Reyk for years to dual license his
code, and won't take no for an answer. It's already totally free code,
but apparently there is some stupid Linus rule that says that all the
code must not be free .... noooo.... it can't just be free, it has to
be SPECIFICALLY GPL. Now I know that's not the truth, because the Linux
tree is FULL of objectional code that either has CSRG licences on it, or
no license at all.
Now he's saying that Linux people should basically ignore Reyk's
license. Well screw you Luis, that is precisely not what you will do
-- you uneducated twit. Copyright is law. You will obey it.
Anyways, hope that explained the question you asked, FOR THIS PARTICULAR
CASE. As I say, read the exact files, and the exact licenses.
