# Re: \[PATCH 4/5\] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2

- From: Jarek Poplawski \<hidden\>
- Date: 2007-08-30 08:25:43 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2007/08/999720
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2007/08/999558/t.md

```text
On 29-08-2007 21:37, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote:
>> 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.
```