Peter writes: > Just a thought: instead of having the BSD preamble in each file, > wouldn't it be easier to just provide a pointer to the license file? > That would make releasing under several licenses easier.
Files tend to get copied around and the license file does not get copied with the file. I've also seen a student remove the GPL license line under the misapprehension that this would make the file non-GPL'd! Having more than one line helps make it more obvious that the file has a license. It is unfortunate that the GPL is too long to include in each file, though I understand why it is that way. My understanding is that our 2 clause BSD license is not incompatible with GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD says: --start-- Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL? Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. Section 6 of GPLv2 states: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. GPLv3 says something similar in section 10. The advertising clause provides just such a further restriction, and thus is GPL-incompatible. The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which eliminates the problem. --end-- BTW - See http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 for a message from rms about an example of why BSD is better than nothing. _Christopher -- Christopher Brooks, PMP University of California CHESS Executive Director US Mail: 337 Cory Hall Programmer/Analyst CHESS/Ptolemy/Trust Berkeley, CA 94720-1774 ph: 510.643.9841 fax:510.642.2718 (Office: 545Q Cory) home: (F-Tu) 707.665.0131 cell: 707.332.0670
