Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:04:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > No specific case law, but I'd expect serious [eventual] trouble for
>> > somebody trying to slap some different license in such case.
>> 
>> Consider this (to make the freeing-the-lion story short):
>> 
>> Jar file with .class files, with a copy of LGPL in the root of the
>> tree.  No other license anywhere to be seen.  Is it safe to assume
>> the whole thing is under the LGPL?

> It certainly sounds like a reasonable first assumption; unless you are
> aware of couterexamples, you probably would be able at least to prove
> that you've acted in good faith if somebody starts to complain.  IANAL,
> obviously, so ask FSF lawyers.  Really.  Especially if you are doing that
> for a text associated with FSF-LA in any way.  That's what they are for.

I've covered my grounds and talked to lawyers in Brazil, where this
all happened.  But it wouldn't hurt me to have cases of law abroad,
which is why I asked.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}