As Luis noted, IANAL, I just hang out with them all day every work day. :) Luis wrote:
> On the other hand if a developer wants to make GPLv2 changes to some > 3-Clause-BSD/ISC files, then its going to be very difficult at that > point to distinguish GPLv2 changes from ISC/3-Clause-BSD. IIRC at that > point we could have BSD developers be able to use some of the code we > produce only if individual patches are specified as licensed under a > 3-Clause-BSD/ISC license. Indeed, even in that case, it might be difficult to be sure that the patches aren't derived from the GPLv2-changed work. Once one contributor decides to ambiguously make changes and doesn't clearly identify his/her license, then you little choice but to assume they contributed under the license of the whole project (in Linux's case, GPLv2) and therefore it must be GPLv2 from then on. Don't forget that back when we did the code review, we weren't really sure how long it would be feasible to keep all the clear license documentation such that the software could remain ISC-licensed. Eventually, someone's going to give you a GPLv2 patch that you really, really want and the days of ISC code sharing will be over. We assumed that day would come eventually. > Let me open another can of worms while we're at it to demonstrate the > problem with the vagueness of the "Alternatively" language. Yes, I'd like to reiterate that the "Alternatively, " language is particularly bad and legally confusing. -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
