On 29-08-2007 21:37, Michael Buesch wrote:

On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote:

quoted

What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported
from BSD, how do you license it?

I think it's a valid assumption, if we say that the author
of the patch read the license header of a file and agreed with it.
So the patch is licensed to whatever the fileheader says. And if
there's none, it's licensed with the COPYING terms.
If a patch author likes some other license conditions, he must
explicitely add them with the patch to the file, saying that this
and that part have these and those conditions. Of course they must
be compatible with the original license.

I didn't track this thread from the beginning, so maybe I repeat
somebody's ideas (probably like above), but IMHO: do we have to be
so selfish/pedantic? Can't we sometimes 'donate' a little bit to our
'older' bsd cousins or half-brothers? I think, it could be like this:

- if our changes are minor and authors of these changes don't mind
the file could stay BSD licensed only; plus we ask BSD to let it be
dual licensed (but no big hassle);

- otherwise, we should always distinctly mark all GPL parts.

Regards,
Jarek P.

PS: there is probably some mess with gmail addresses in this thread.