This is one of the rare occasions where I think Theo is right

Posted Sep 4, 2007 20:25 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (guest, #19270)
In reply to: This is one of the rare occasions where I think Theo is right by epa
Parent article: Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

"The position that dual-licensed files must 'always' remain dual-licensed after making changes seems a bit untenable though. "

I think the reality is more like "The original file and the code it contains always remain dual-licensed." Once you modify the file, the resulting file is licensed under a combination of the original dual-licensing and whatever license you put on your own modifications. Depending on your choice, this could even make the modified file undistributable, even by you (if your license terms aren't compatible with either of the original licenses).

Personally, I would be happiest ethically with retaining the original dual licensing for any modifications. Anything else just seems rude.

to post comments

Then what's the point of dual licensing?

Posted Sep 5, 2007 19:02 UTC (Wed) by mrshiny (guest, #4266) [Link]

If it's unethical to release changes to a dual-licensed file using only one license, what's the point of HAVING a dual-license in the first place? Seems to me the original author is saying "Take your pick", not creating some super-license that contains all the terms of the individual licenses. And IANAL but as far as I'm concerned if a file is available under two licenses you can use the privileges of one license to strip away the other license. The original code would still be dual-licensed but your modified version would be under whichever license you chose.

This is one of the rare occasions where I think Theo is right

Posted Sep 6, 2007 9:50 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

But the original author stated his intent that it is choose and pick. (And the FreeBSD folks did so, too.) And in law, intent counts a lot.

That said, I also think that Linux changes to the drivers should be licensed BSD+GPL, in respect for the original authors' work. It's not a legal thing, it's a moral obligation, IMHO.