* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free * Software Foundation.
If you think adding this to Linux would do anything the code's original authors did not want to happen, you don't understand what "alternatively" means.
The issue has been addressed already. That was an unnoticed mistake that was quickly rectified. The parts of the code that were not dual-licensed were treated separately. However there was dual-licensed code there as well, which was re-licensed as GPL. Theo took an issue with this.
It really doesn't matter. The BSD does not assure that people you distribute derived works too get all the rights you got to the original code. So whether or not it's dual-licensed, you are not required to grant a BSD-style license to derived works. Technically, you can't remove the BSD license from the file. But it will no longer apply to the modified file. It will still only apply to the original file.
The biggest difference between the BSD and the GPL is that the GPL must apply to all derivative works of G
Do the BSD proponents understand "Alternatively" (Score:4, Informative)
If you think adding this to Linux would do anything the code's original authors did not want to happen, you don't understand what "alternatively" means.
Clue: it doesn't mean "as well as".
Re:Do the BSD proponents understand "Alternatively (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Technically, you can't remove the BSD license from the file. But it will no longer apply to the modified file. It will still only apply to the original file.
The biggest difference between the BSD and the GPL is that the GPL must apply to all derivative works of G