Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:12 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 266639
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-02
You're still around!? Damn
Anyway, the "stealing" of BSD-licensed code never happened. There is no such code in the kernel-trees. It was in mail-discussion merely. Besides that the two BSD-licensed files were dual-licensed and were also under the GPL with clear rights for the user to choose either license and discard the other. So those two files are non-problematic.
The three problematic files are however not under the BSD-license and no attributions were removed. Only the conditions were removed - which of course was wrong. But it was not a part of the linux kernel, so you got that part wrong. What Jiri Slaby should've done with the three non-GPL non-BSD files was to add the GPL license so both licenses applied. But that's not what Theo complained about. He complained about removing one of two licenses from the files - a perfectly legal choice.