> > 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 ?
You are assuming that the "kernel" is one big piece of software under one
big license. There are a lot of components, and each can have it's own
license. This has nothing to do with relicensing, since that is the original
license for that component.
-- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bmc@visi.net ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'- 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 - 21:00:23 EST