Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:12 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Permalink for comment 266590
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-10-02
Theo is wrong about the removal of the BSD-part of Sam Leffler's file (ath5k_base.h). The moment you use, modify or distribute the file you have the right to choose one of the licenses (or both if you want to do keep the dual-licensing).
Theo claims incorrectly that the right to choose one of the licenses don't exists UNTIL a modification has been made. Truth is that it kicks in the moment, you use, modify and/or distribute the file. So everything has been done 110% correct for the BSD-licensed parts. The problem is the three files NOT under the BSD and NOT under the GPL. Those three files have had their license violated. That's clear. But Theo is rambling like a stupid maniac in regard to the dual-licensed files.