> On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having > > > section 3 of the LGPL. > > > > Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also > > distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and > > 3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL. > > Being less restrictive doesn't make it the GPL. Neither BSD nor MIT > allow you to turn their licensing terms and conditions into GPL terms > and conditions.
As a matter of fact, they do. They give you plenty of control over your derivative work when you make it -- including the power to make your derivative work available under a more restrictive license. This is exactly what copyleft licenses (L?GPL et alli) restrict -- if you make a derivative work and the original work is copyleft-licensed, you usually cannot make your derivative available under any license other than the original license itself. -- HTH, Massa