On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 04:10:00PM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Andrew,
>...
> One consequence of this is that we have not been able to benefit directly
> from patches from other Linux contributors. The reason is, patches submitted
> to code only under the GPL must also be GPL, and therefore we cannot take
> them directly and still make our code available under a license other than
> the GPL. (We have to determine the problem the patch fixes and then do the
> fix ourselves.)
>...
> In order to solve this, we are considering releasing the Linux version of
> the interpreter under a dual license. This would allow direct incorporation
> of changes. Any patches submitted against the ACPI core code would
> implicitly be allowed to be used by us in a non-GPL context. This is already
> done elsewhere in the Linux kernel source by the PCMCIA code, for example.
>
> Comments?
two comments regarding the right of an author to freely choose under
which license(s) he wants to make his patch available:
If a submitter wants to allow you to use his patch under both licenses
he's already able to allow you to do so.
You can't forbid people to send GPL-only patches, so if a person doesn't
want his patch under your looser license you can't enforce that he also
releases it under your looser license.
> Regards -- Andy
cu
Adrian
--"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:28 EST