In article <200003071426.BAA06561@cairo.anu.edu.au>,
Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>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.
There are numerous files that are under a dual license, which is
perfectly ok. I don't actively encourage it, because it creates
problems if somebody else than the original author were to ever say "I
want to patch the Linux GPL'd version of this file, but I do NOT want to
make my changes available under the BSD license" or vice versa, but it
hasn't been a problem so far, so it's not something I discourage either.
(And besides, if somebody were to send me a patch with those kinds of
restrictions, my solution would probably be to just not accept the patch
in the first place).
The one file you mention (bsd_comp.c) is the only real special case that
I'm aware of, which is why it cannot be linked into the kernel directly
(it only ever gets built as a module - not for any technical reasons,
but simply due to the copyright issue).
Linus
-
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