* Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-07 20:35]: > Ok, I think I have no problem if the code in the script is under the > new BSDL (I didn't recognize it), and the resulting script executable is > covered by the GNU GPL, as quoted. > > However I think it may be considered good if all code that depends on the > GNU GPL'd library is at least dual licensed, making derivatives under GNU > GPL trivial (or interoperability trivial, for this reason). Currently my > understanding is that the BSDL header should be left untouched in the > derived GPL'd work, that is a nonsense. > > If my understanding is wrong and the BSDL header (anything under the > copyright notice) may be just replaced with the GNU GPL'd header then > there is no any issue.
Well in contrast to the GPL the main point of the (modified) BSD-License is to give credit to the author, so the copyright line and the two license conditions and the disclaimer need to be preserved. I think the GPL header is quite similar to this, see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC4 But other than that there are no restrictions, everybody is free to do whatever her or she wants to do with it, it may be included in a GPL'd project or it may even be used in a commercial closed source program. I prefer this kind of freedom but I have no objections against the GPL either, it's a matter of philosophy and personal preference. Should I ever write something which is less simple and more useful or which might even be included in fvwm I will put it under the GPL (which is probably longer than this tiny module). -- Guido Berhoerster [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.guido-berhoerster.org/ -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
