Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver

From: Patrick McHardy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:53:04 +0200

Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>>I do think you need to allow people to select GPLv2 only.
>>>>      
>>>
> The Linux Kernel is currently under GPLv2 and we just wanted to follow
> Linus' mind and so we referenced the COPYING file which many other
> source does as well. Indeed it was a hard thing to make our code
> available under GPL (as creating and publishing open source software is
> really no a usual thing for the Volkswagen rights department). So i
> discussed with the rights department about several disclaimers inside
> the current Kernel (especially the stuff that has been signed off by
> companies like IBM, Motorola, etc.). In this process it turned out to be
> the best to license the code under "Dual BSD/GPL" as it grants more
> rights to the programmer (including ourselves) than a GPL only license.
> I assume this was the intention from IBM, Motorola and all the others
> also. Btw. inside the Kernel context it behaves exactly like GPL code
> (like all the other dual license code).
> 
> So i really can't see any problem here. If so there would have been a
> big discussion about the other "Dual BSD/GPL" code.

Yoshifuji's point was that the license seems to contradict itself,
it says you may choose GPL, but have to retain BSD. And that is
not about Dual BSD/GPL but about the specific wording.

/me runs and refrains from the discussion as promised :)