On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 11:53:35PM +0000, Felipe Ferreri Tonello wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On March 5, 2016 7:39:13 PM GMT+00:00, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote: > >On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0500, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Mar 02 2016, Felipe F. Tonello wrote: > >> >>> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ > >> >>> * Copyright (C) 2006 Thumtronics Pty Ltd. > >> >>> * Ben Williamson <ben.william...@greyinnovation.com> > >> >>> * > >> >>> - * Licensed under the GPL-2 or later. > >> >>> + * Licensed under the GPLv2. > >> > >> > On March 4, 2016 7:17:31 PM GMT+00:00, Michal Nazarewicz > ><min...@mina86.com> wrote: > >> >> Any particular reason to do that? > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 04 2016, Felipe Ferreri Tonello wrote: > >> > Because the kernel is v2 only and not later. > >> > >> Linux as a whole is GPLv2 only, but that doesn’t necessarily mean > >that > >> parts of it cannot be dual licensed (or GPLv2+). It’s safer to leave > >> copyright noticed clear unless you explicitly want your contribution > >be > >> GPLv2 only which brings the whole file GPLv2 only. > > > >But you can't change the license of someone else's code, which is what > >is happening here. Felipe T, you can't do that at all unless you want > >to get into big trouble, please consult a lawyer for all of the gory > >details. > > Thanks for letting me know. TBH, I had no idea about it.
Never change a copyright or a license if you don't know exactly what you are doing, or why you are doing it, and have consulted with a lawyer beforehand. The issues here are real, don't take them lightly. greg k-h
