Hi! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >Hi,
>In order to make my mind about this subject... >You're complaining solely of the changes in files: > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h >But not in files: > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h >Right? >To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without >malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he >shouldn't. >In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD > license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 >So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU >GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files >alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use >anymore. IMO no. For dual-licensing using "or", you may exert the rights granted by either of the licenses. But neither BSD nor GPLv2 grant re/sublicensing. So I think you must keep the dual-license intact. You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license. >[...] Kind regards, Hannah.
