Hi,
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:

quoted text
>> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

>> > > > Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the

>> question.

>> > > > Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2

>> granted ones?

>>

>> Both!

>

> That's not what the copyright notice of the files

>         * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c

>         * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h

>         * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h

>

> said. It said it was licensed under the BSD ters. *Alternatively* on the

> GNU GPLv2.

>

> Its "alternatively" not "at the same time"

NO. You are using the word out of context, put it back in there and it

is simple:

* 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.
To translate that:
"ALTERNATIVELY" you may "DISTRIBUTE" the software using GPL "or" BSD.
That's _ALL_ it does say. "distribute" is not the same as change,

modify, delete, whatever.
/Putting it down to the legal point of view it implies even a "XOR" eg.

one or the other choice, it's kind of missing the "may also" part but

we are not splitting words here and it's reasonable to interpret it

as "OR". This part is not that clear but also not that important since

the result of applying either "OR" or "XOR" is practically the same.

The wordly inpretation is actually if you choose GPL you may use BSD

any more, which is implied in the GPL so, but it is not stated like

that, so whatever, not relevant in the context, but this sentece could

be a lot clearer with "may also" instead of "may", could be also my

english, I am not a native speaker .../
This allows you to "distribute" the Software complying with the license

there or, if you wish you so complying to GPL2.

The word "may" also makes it clear that the author prefers his license

and not GPL2 but since he is easy on that he allows you to make you own

choice there.
The only thing which leaves room for interpretation there is the

"distribution" part. But from the court point of view you will likely

not get much leaway there and I would not place any bets on it.
So if you wan't to be on the safe side, copy it, upload it, print it,

distribute it any way you like but don't modify the license or the

lawyers I work for/with will have you for a midnight snack from the

fridge. (Not even for breaktfast, case is not big enough)
NOW:
When you modify the work, when you add you own code to it, the situation

changes.
You can basically do 3 sensible things:
1. Distribute a "diff" under any license any way you like. This is not

   always safe though, depends on what's exactly in the diff but reasonable.

   -> You are not changing anything on the original, you are just giving

      other people instructions for changes they can do at their own

      discretion and responsibility.
2. Just add them and you name on top leaving the licencse and copyright

   the way they are.
3. Wrap the whole thing into a big block, with your licencse and copyright

   on top and the other's license and copyright inside.

   - They have to be inside, you can not remove them.

   - You have to adhere to their terms in doing so.
   With the original license you can do this. With GPL you might not even

   be allowed to do that. Yes, the Programm is still "BSD" Licensed.

   It's not GPL licensed. It only refers to the GPL for the distribution

   Which does include the GPL into the picture but does not mean that

   all terms of the GPL apply. The first license eg. BSD has precedence.
> Please stop rudely calling me a liar, ok?

quoted text
> You have neither the right nor truth on your side to do that.

>

Well, propragating false views is not exactly lying but it does not show

cleverness either.

But since we are in a discussion here it is okay, learning is part of it.
>From my point of view, I would not do anything else then specified with

the original license with this software since the reference to the GPL

does not give any advantages only more restrictions. It could be that

some part of the GPL gives me some additional right in distribution which

the other license might not give you.

I will however not investigate this since it would involve a lengthy

conversation with some real lawyer about the subject and I am quite happy

with either BSD or public domain.
If you give, don't expect things back just give and don't complain.

It's hard these days, people are not showing respect for what they receive,

but that's not a reason to go GPL that's a reason to stop giving. ;(
-sm