On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde <[email protected]>
wrote:
Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the BSD license or
under the GPL" as an acceptable license?
Please review https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16957/.
That's still special-casing the dual-licensed files; any reason not to just treat it as
an acceptable license by adding "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)" to
WHITELISTED_LICENSES?
Repeating what I said in the Gerrit change (this is just my understanding of
course):
There's a difference between "choose license A or B" and "this code is license A and
that addition is license B".
Then perhaps licensecheck.pl should distinguish between them:
[ snipped code sample]
Perhaps... I think that distinction only matters to the copyright
holder, CACE Technologies, now Riverbed I believe.
For the distributor, the Wireshark project, the code is licensed under
BSD, because it cannot be used with GPLv2+.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
