Re: Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.12
Scripsit Giacomo Catenazzi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Source code files that contain the phrase "licensing governed by
> reiserfs/README" are "governed files" throughout this file. Governed
> files are licensed under the GPL. The portions of them owned by Hans
> Reiser, or authorized to be licensed by him, have been in the past,
> and likely will be in the future, licensed to other parties under
> other licenses. If you add your code to governed files, and don't
> want it to be owned by Hans Reiser, put your copyright label on that
> code so the poor blight and his customers can keep things straight.
I think this is straight GPL, plus a request to put in copyright
notices when things change. However, documenting that one did changes
is already mandated by GPL #2.a, so the request does not imply any
substantial difference from straight GPL.
> All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans
> Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely distributing it to
> others or sending us a patch, and leaving the sentence in stating that
> licensing is governed by the statement in this file, you accept this.
Adding things to the files without due notice of the change is
*forbidden* by the GPL. Essentially this notice seems to say that you
get the *additional* right to do such additions if you transfer your
copyright to Hans Reiser. Formally that amounts to a dual-licensing
scheme which is fine by the DFSG as long as one of the alternatives
(i.e. GPL) is free.
> It will be a kindness if you identify whether Hans Reiser is allowed
Non-legal request. Can be ignored for license-screening purposes.
> Further licensing options are available for commercial and/or other
> interests directly from Hans Reiser: email@example.com.
> Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
> fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits, without my
> permission, unless you are an end user not redistributing to others.
Clarification of license, agrees AFAIK with our usual reading of the
GPL. (In most jurisdictions known on debian-legal, an author *cannot*
validly waive his rights to fair credit except in particular and
limited cases, so this clarification does not really change any legal
Henning Makholm "Fuck Lone."