On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for example, which even Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of contractual obligation to provide access to [modified] source code under original license, may I note). regards, alexander.