Re: Policy on dual licensing?

Theodore Tso wrote: >> There are over four hundred C source files that mention BSD, but only >> a hundred of them is dual licensed. Of course not all mentions of BSD >> mean the file is derived from it, as well as not each such licensed file >> must use the acronym. No matter what the scale reall

Re: Policy on dual licensing?

Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > It doesn't make sense in general. Being derived from *BSD may mean > only a tiny fragment comes from *BSD. I can't see any valid reason > to force/ask the author to publish his/her code under BSD > (GPL + BSD = BSD) instead of GPLv2 as used by the whole Linux. > > There ar

Policy on dual licensing?

reluctant to do so - what can we do, it's better to have this inside this way than not at all. However, this should minimize such cases and, hopefully, satisfy the claims about Linux maintainers not doing all that they could to make the world a better place. Best regards, Remigiusz Modrzej