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

On 30-08-2007 13:59, Johannes Berg wrote:

On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:13 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:

quoted

How about asking for changes to be dual-licenced too ?

In theory, that could work, but in practice relying on functions that
the Linux kernel offers in GPLv2-only headers etc. will make the result
GPLv2 anyway, and disentangling it would be a nightmare.

Why?

Very good point, but, in my opinion, it should be still resonable for
both sides: it simply means such changes are mostly unusable for the
other side, but nobody is going to waste time for marking all these
places, or care about suing if accidentally the changes, after some
adaptation, are usable for the other side. Unless you think or know
that "#include xyz" or "print_linux_way()" should add more than these
(maybe unusable) words or lines only?

Jarek P.