Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel?

["Hans J. Koch" <hjk@linutronix.de>]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:40:26AM +0530, pradeep singh rautela wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:37AM +0530, pradeep [snip]
> >  > Can a module/file be Dual licensed(i.e BSD/GPLv2) in the upstream
> >  > Linux kernel sources?
> >
> >  Are you somehow not believing the files that we have in the tree that
> >  are licensed this way?
> >  > I think it is GPLv2 only.
> >
> >  Licensing questions would be better off asked to lawyers, not
> >  programmers.  Would you ask a random group of lawyers on a public
> >  mailing list medical questions and trust their responses?
> 
> Um... apologies Greg.I did not mean that in any sense.I am a
> programmer not a lawyer. I am asking to get clear understanding of the
> licensing issues and I myself do not have any good understanding on
> dual licensing Vs GPLv2 licensing in Linux kernel.

I share Greg's opinion that this list is not the place for getting or
giving legal advice. Please _do_ consult a lawyer.
In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose
between two licenses. If a file is dual licensed BSD/GPLv2, anybody
(including yourself) is free to get rid of the BSD part and make it
GPLv2 only.

Thanks,
Hans