Messages in this thread | | | From | Darren Reed <> | Subject | Re: BSD Licensed files in Linux kernel. | Date | Wed, 8 Mar 2000 03:17:09 +1100 (Australia/NSW) |
| |
In some mail from Andi Kleen, sie said: > > Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> writes: > > > 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. > > > > Whilst the Linux kernel itself is `meant' to be GPL'd, there > > would appear to be some doubt about whether the GPL would allow > > such files to be included (no sub-licensing, etc). Has anyone > > received legal advice about whether those files do in fact > > represent a further restriction that would conflict with the > > GPL ? If so, can they still be (re)distributed with Linux ? > > Afterall, it is not appropriate to just remove the offending > > lines... > > > 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 ?
Darren
- 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/
| |