Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

• 2007-08-30 · Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 · Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
• 2007-08-29 · Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 · Xavier Bestel <hidden>
• 2007-08-29 · Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 · Jiri Slaby <hidden>
• 2007-08-29 · Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 · Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
• 2007-08-28 · Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2 · Luis R. Rodriguez <hidden>

Is it actually necessary to change the license?  With the dual-license, 
you can keep a single code-base for both BSD and Linux platforms, which 
seems terribly important to me.  It'd be awful to lose that.  It would 
be a maintenance nightmare for BSD.  Is it even possible--in real life, 
I mean--to accept GPLed patches into a BSD project?  Nightmare, I tell you!