Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 15:46 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 268251
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.
RE[4]: cant argue with this...
by Crono on Tue 4th Sep 2007 00:45
in reply to "RE[3]: cant argue with this..."
Reyk Floeter's code was never dual licensed. It was always BSD and BSD only.
That's probably why the diff on the damn LKML had the dual-licensed-clause already in it! DUH
Here's the diff for you. The clause is already in it. And it says alternatively (see above)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157
I don't really care if the code was ORIGINALLY under a BSD-only license. The code that was used in the Linux-diver was already the dual-licensed one and Jiri changed it to the GPL-license since the text ALLOWS EXACTLY THAT THING.
I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad idea to to this, but it definately is completely legal.
Edited 2007-09-04 00:59






Member since:
2007-09-03
ALTERNATIVELY
Reyk Floeter's code was never dual licensed. It was always BSD and BSD only.