Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: GPL version, "at your option"? | Date | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:54:19 -0500 |
| |
On Wednesday 17 November 2004 10:11 pm, Kyle Moffett wrote: > What about section 2, subsection B of the GPL: > > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > > parties under the terms of this License. > > "this License", would refer to the specific version of the license. > This means > that since the original code is dual-licensed under both versions, any > code > that is a derivative work must _also_ be dual-licensed
No, not at all. I need only _one_ license to use the code. If original code was dual-licensed, let's say GPL/BSD, I can chose to completely ignore GPL part and treat the code as if it was always released BSD only. Why do you think several components, like ACPI, are dual-licensed? Intel chose to do that so they can take ACPI interpreter implementation and use it somewhere else, in non-GPL environment.
Q9. Under what licensing is the source released? A9. ACPI CA can be licensed under the GNU General Public License or via a separate license that may be more favorable to commercial OSVs. Please see the source code license header for specifics.
> (This assumes of course that the other license has a similar clause). > In any case, any work > derived from a GPLv2'ed work must also be licensable under the GPLv2. > Therefore, my request for _your_ source-code under the GPLv2 is > perfectly > valid.
See above. For me it was never GPLv2, if was BSD all the way and my new code I can chose to make BSD only.
-- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |