[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: grub-extras legal and technical status (was Re: ZFS imported into GR

From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: grub-extras legal and technical status (was Re: ZFS imported into GRUB)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:06:25 +0100

2010/12/15 Nathan Coulson <address@hidden>:
> That would be me (
> Made a few years back, based upon the original 915resolution
> (According to LICENSE.txt from 915resolution, 915resolution is in the
> public domain).  Since KMS was added to the linux kernel, though, I
> have not done any maintenance on it (although it looks like some
> distributions have added onto this work).
> Oh, and just to clarify, I never licensed it under the GPL3.  I have a
> passing familiarity with the GPL and other licenses, but at the time I
> wrote this I was not sure how it should have been licensed (My only
> concern when it came to licensing is that I did not change much from
> 915resolution, and 915resolution was not my work).
> According to LICENSE.txt from 915resolution 0.5.3 package,
>, 915resolution is in the Public
> Domain.

Hi Nathan,

First off, thanks for porting 915resolution to GRUB, I think it has
been useful to many users since then.

I believe the multiple license headers in 915resolution.c correctly
reflect the copyright status (or lack thereof) and license from the
changes made by each party.  Back in the day I took special care
to document them (but if you think I made a mistake, then please
let me know about it).

The COPYING file specifies license terms that can be applied
to the whole.  In this case it's accurate in saying that GPL
terms can be applied to the result.  This doesn't imply that you
licensed any code under GPL, only that your license terms
(or in this case, your lack of copyright assertion) are compatible
with the GPL.

Robert Millan

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]