In some mail from Andi Kleen, sie said:
>
> Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> writes:
>
> > Sorry to disturb you folks, but someone has pointed out to me
> > that there are some files (e.g. linux/drivers/net/bsd_comp.c)
> > which are licensed under the BSD license and not the GPL.
> >
> > Whilst the Linux kernel itself is `meant' to be GPL'd, there
> > would appear to be some doubt about whether the GPL would allow
> > such files to be included (no sub-licensing, etc). Has anyone
> > received legal advice about whether those files do in fact
> > represent a further restriction that would conflict with the
> > GPL ? If so, can they still be (re)distributed with Linux ?
> > Afterall, it is not appropriate to just remove the offending
> > lines...
>
>
> The file in question is copyright UCB.
> UCB has recently dropped the problematical clause (3) of the license,
> and the BSD license without that does not conflict with the GPL. UCB
> as the copyright holder can drop that. They did. So there is no problem.
What about the view that the GPL prohibits sub-licensing (such as what
the UCB file has) ?
What about the view that the UCB copyright places restrictions (albeit
very light) which are not present in the GPL ? Specifically this:
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Wouldn't this fly in the face of section 6 of the GPL ?
Darren
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:22 EST