> With consideration to the word "sublicense" ? Whilst it isn't more
> restrictive than the GPL, it isn't the GPL, which (to me) appears
> to be a problem ?
There does not seem to be a problem. The author has simply
provided two licenses. One, the GPL, appears to apply to the
file when it is distributed as part of the Linux kernel. The
other appears to apply to the file on its own. Of course,
you can argue about whether *you* can do what you want with
the file in court - but you can't stop the copyright owner doing what
they want with it (which includes issuing licenses to others)
unless you can show that they do not actually own the copyright.
Mike
-- .----------------------------------------------------------------------. | Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk | | Roan Technology Ltd. | | | 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 | | RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 | `----------------------------------------------------------------------'
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/