Re: checklicenses.py

[João Valverde <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt>]

On 08/08/2016 08:12 PM, João Valverde wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> > > On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde
> > > <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> > > > On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde
> > > > <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the
> > > > > > BSD license or under the GPL" as an acceptable license?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please review https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16957/.
> > > >
> > > > That's still special-casing the dual-licensed files; any reason not
> > > > to just treat it as an acceptable license by adding "BSD (3 clause)
> > > > GPL (v2)" to WHITELISTED_LICENSES?
> > >
> > > Repeating what I said in the Gerrit change (this is just my
> > > understanding of course):
> > >
> > > There's a difference between "choose license A or B" and "this code
> > > is license A and that addition is license B".
> >
> > Then perhaps licensecheck.pl should distinguish between them:
>
> [ snipped code sample]
>
> Perhaps... I think that distinction only matters to the copyright
> holder, CACE Technologies, now Riverbed I believe.
>
> For the distributor, the Wireshark project, the code is licensed under
> BSD, because it cannot be used with GPLv2+.

I meant to say cannot be used with GPLv2+ *otherwise*. More accurately 
that accepting GPLv2 only code would mean we can't use GPLv3(+).

Sorry for the confusion.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe