Hi!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

quoted text
>Hi,

>In order to make my mind about this subject...
>You're complaining solely of the changes in files:

quoted text
>	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h

>	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c

>	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h

>	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c

>	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h

>But not in files:

quoted text
>	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c

>	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h

>	* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h

>Right?
>To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without

quoted text
>malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he

>shouldn't.

>In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:

quoted text
>	"at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD

>	license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2

>So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU

quoted text
>GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files

>alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use

>anymore.

IMO no. For dual-licensing using "or", you may exert the rights granted

by either of the licenses. But neither BSD nor GPLv2 grant

re/sublicensing. So I think you must keep the dual-license intact.
You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant

enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
>[...]
Kind regards,
Hannah.