...already being solved the problem resides with these three files:
ath5k.h
ath5k_hw.c
ath5k_hw.h
None of these are under the BSD-license!, but are under a MIT-like license (but not MIT itself - the MIT-license is longer).
The problem is that the conditions have been removed from those three files. However, the copyright notices have not been removed. It is however still a copyright violation.
For the file ath5k_base.c the situation is that it is dual-licensed BSD/GPL and Jiri Slaby is the sole copyright holder and can removed anything as he please. No problem here.
For the last file ath5k_base.h the situation is that it is dual-licensed BSD/GPL and it is therefore perfectly legal to remove the BSD-license since the other license has not been removed. By choosing one of the licenses one are creating a derivative, so that argument is moot.
The entire history is pretty much bogus since no BSD-conditions have been stripped in violation of the licenses. However we have a MIT-like non-BSD license which is violated three times. That's just as bad - but it isn't a BSD-license.
Conditions have been removed from three files but none of these are under the BSD-license so the claim is incorrect. However conditions have been removed, and it is a copyright violation. But it has been fixed anyway, though the BSD-parts don't need fixing.
je crois que c'est assez claire comme explication.sinon désolé pour les anglophobe, je crois pas que j'ai le niveau requis pour traduire ce texte.
[^] # Re: Tu es peu informé...
Posté par barbisx . En réponse au journal [Troll?] Sacré Théo. Évalué à 4.
...already being solved the problem resides with these three files:
ath5k.h
ath5k_hw.c
ath5k_hw.h
None of these are under the BSD-license!, but are under a MIT-like license (but not MIT itself - the MIT-license is longer).
The problem is that the conditions have been removed from those three files. However, the copyright notices have not been removed. It is however still a copyright violation.
For the file ath5k_base.c the situation is that it is dual-licensed BSD/GPL and Jiri Slaby is the sole copyright holder and can removed anything as he please. No problem here.
For the last file ath5k_base.h the situation is that it is dual-licensed BSD/GPL and it is therefore perfectly legal to remove the BSD-license since the other license has not been removed. By choosing one of the licenses one are creating a derivative, so that argument is moot.
The entire history is pretty much bogus since no BSD-conditions have been stripped in violation of the licenses. However we have a MIT-like non-BSD license which is violated three times. That's just as bad - but it isn't a BSD-license.
Conditions have been removed from three files but none of these are under the BSD-license so the claim is incorrect. However conditions have been removed, and it is a copyright violation. But it has been fixed anyway, though the BSD-parts don't need fixing.
je crois que c'est assez claire comme explication.sinon désolé pour les anglophobe, je crois pas que j'ai le niveau requis pour traduire ce texte.