Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Humans are also required to follow the text of the licence, and not let > things through just because we think they ought to have been allowed.
But we're not wondering whether or not they ought to be allowed: the FSF has, by explicit example, demonstrated the authoritative interpretation. It would be awfully hard for them to sue for doing the same thing yourself. > Let me try and restate my reasoning. When making a derived work from GPL > source, you are not allowed to add extra, more restrictive conditions on > top of the GPL conditions. But the (new) BSD licence does impose an extra > condition, namely the condition to reproduce the BSD licence. It's not an > onerous condition, or a condition that damages freeness -- but it is an > extra condition. So how can one make a work derived from both BSD and GPL > source? Um, the GPL already requires that you keep all the "appropriate copyright notices" intact. So the BSD license is not adding some new condition at all; it's repeating a portion of the GPL's condition.
