From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758904AbYD2GcL (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:32:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755011AbYD2Gb5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:31:57 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.169]:56589 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754750AbYD2Gb4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:31:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=oWS+biShgdRdf2VZQgiB1QgU9Mnm1ERQ3cQdc8Ry3ppz6dwur/lKuGm4Xo2mV1wuSqw4QFX8l86aJDV8yRjXeFM1KqoJEf2hhUHEnXB6ipxrb3SkRYUDv5UTZjyOoUSgCslpZCSKcF4/E1c1VcubmMom//n/IcaIeM9G6/SFrWg= Message-ID: <6bc632150804282331t191abb47gec8bc2e075739a4f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:01:55 +0530 From: "pradeep singh rautela" To: "Hans J. Koch" Subject: Re: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel? Cc: "Greg KH" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080429062627.GA3195@local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <6bc632150804282237o1aa04e28t93f46874cd14721f@mail.gmail.com> <20080429055356.GA8279@kroah.com> <6bc632150804282310yf2a3bfm5a5e89e5ed4af165@mail.gmail.com> <20080429062627.GA3195@local> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Hans J. Koch 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 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