Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:01:48 -0300 From: "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" <unixmania@gmail.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: heci: a new driver for review and testing Message-ID: <e71790db0910150801l67dca882mc9f78db9ea20faef@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20091014203428.7d84bf96@bhuda.mired.org> References: <4AD6067E.2010503@icyb.net.ua> <e71790db0910141546g24cf04e9kc9823137c5c0fb9@mail.gmail.com> <20091014203428.7d84bf96@bhuda.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:46:20 -0300
> "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" <unixmania@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> wrote:
>>
>> > BTW, can/may I drop "alternatively GPL" wording from License block of the files I
>> > borrowed from Intel? I.e. can a dual BSD+GPL licensed file be turned into BSD-only?
>>
>> If Intel is the copyright owner then you can not change the license
>> without their permission.
>
> True. But he *has* their permission. They list the requirements for
> use and redistribution in the license block in question:
>
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer,
> * without modification.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
> * substantially similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below
> * ("Disclaimer") and any redistribution must be conditioned upon
> * including a substantially similar Disclaimer requirement for further
> * binary redistribution.
> * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
> * of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
> * from this software without specific prior written permission.
>
> I don't see anything there about retaining the ability to choose an
> alternative license. The paragraph in question says that people can
> *choose* to distribute it under the GPLv2, not that it *is* being
> distributed under the GPLv2.
Conversely, I don't see anything there explicitly *allowing* somebody
to remove that paragraph so I'd keep it unless I had express clearance
from Intel. Making assumptions can be dangerous, especially when
dealing with large corporations. That's the main lesson I've learned
after several years dealing with such matters.
I don't want to make this discussion longer than necessary, so I stop here.
--
My preferred quotation of Robert Louis Stevenson is "You cannot
make an omelette without breaking eggs". Not because I like the
omelettes, but because I like the sound of eggs being broken.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e71790db0910150801l67dca882mc9f78db9ea20faef>