[pisa] Re: PISA licensing status
- From: Diego Biurrun <diego@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:00:03 +0200
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 04:14:50PM +0200, Dongsu Park wrote:
>
> On Monday 22 June 2009 15:44:36 Diego Biurrun wrote:
> ...
> > However, we use the following two files, which are under the GPL (any
> > version):
> > trunk/include/iwlib.h
> > trunk/libpisa/iwlib.c
> >
> > As long as we keep using these two, all of PISA is GPL.
> >
> >
> > Then there is trunk/include/wireless.h, which states
> >
> > * Copyright (c) 1997-2005 Jean Tourrilhes, All Rights Reserved.
> >
> > That's not good. It's just a bunch of #defines and structure
> > definitions though, which makes it questionable if the file is
> > copyrightable at all. Since it is part of the Linux kernel, I think we
> > can assume that it is supposed to be GPL.
>
> All the source codes of iwlib were imported from wireless-tools that is
> already GPL.
Which source files would that be exactly?
I'm just learning my way around the pisa source tree..
> > The BSD 3 clause license headers we use contain the following line:
> >
> > * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
> >
> > Somebody misunderstood what placeholders are supposed to be for or
> > treated 20 lines of licensing information like a binary blob that is
> > copied around, but never read. I'm not sure what is worse...
>
> I think, any BSD license should not be used in iwlib, because
> wireless-tools is already under GPL.
Well, BSD-type licenses are compatible with the GPL, so combining them
is not a problem, but the result of combining them must of course be
under the GPL.
> I have always assumed that the entire PISA source tree should be GPL.
> If any other license statements already exist, they are probably
> mistakes. Of course you guys can discuss about the license policy,
> and change the existing false statements to the right ones.
So you are giving permission to relicense your code as we see fit?
Diego
Other related posts:
