From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758122AbYENXg0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 19:36:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752271AbYENXgS (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 19:36:18 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:3982 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751302AbYENXgR (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 19:36:17 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: "pradeep singh rautela" , , "Greg KH" , Subject: RE: [Q]Can a file be dual licensed in upstream kernel? Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 16:36:14 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20080514152834.GA6888@ucw.cz> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Wed, 14 May 2008 16:37:37 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Wed, 14 May 2008 16:37:38 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Thu 2008-05-01 07:59:54, David Schwartz wrote: > > In my _personal_opinion_, dual licensing gives you the right to choose > > between two licenses. > > Dual licensing gives every recipient both licenses from the > > original author. > > You can choose which license you will obtain rights from. > > > > > 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. > > Really? Which license or law gives you the right to change the licensing > > terms on code you didn't write? At least in the United States, > > you cannot > You don't change licensing. You got choice of two licenses, and you > selected one. GPL gives you right to remove the BSD licensing terms > you did not choose. GPL gives you the right to remove the BSD licensing *TERMS*, but this has no effect on the actual license. The works do not become GPLv2 only just because you removed the licensing terms. > (People still can use the code under BSD license _if_ they know it was > originally BSD/GPL.. as long as you don't modify it). Exactly. So you *cannot* change the license, you can only remove the licensing terms. And even if you do modify it, that still has no effect on the available licenses for any creative elements you did not author. "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." For both the GPL and the BSD license, anyone who receives covered works or elements receives the offered licenses directly from the original author. There is nothing you can do to change this. Neither the BSD license nor the GPL license allow you to in any way modify the license or licenses offered by anyone else to creative elements they authored. In the United States, at least, this is not even possible without a written re-licensing agreement. The licenses always flow from each creative element's original author to the final end user. Distributors simply provide copies of the works, they do *NOT* relicense them. People who modify the works simply add and license other creative elements, they do not relicense the existing ones. DS