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

["pradeep singh rautela" <rautelap@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Hans J. Koch <hjk@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 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.That clears things for a newbie like me.

Regards,
    --Pradeep
>
>  Thanks,
>  Hans
>
>



-- 
Pradeep Singh Rautela
http://eagain.wordpress.com
http://emptydomain.googlepages.com