� (At) 20:19 -0500 26/11/01, John Cowan �crivait (wrote) : > > There is nevertheless BSD clause #2. It says >> that if you release in binary form, you should also include the BSD >> license in the documentation. > >And so you must, but the license is not *effective* over the work as >a whole, only the parts originally so licensed. It must be included >*as a piece of text*, but there is no BSD requirement that BSD >works be *licensed* under the BSD (it is not a copyleft).
John, I'm aware of your objection, we talked about it earlier on this list (I summarized it in Solution #2, consider the BSD as decorative, but I can see that I don't give full consideration to your point). My argument is that if I give you a program with, in the documentation, the GPL and the BSD, you have to respect both, not just the GPL (or just the BSD) because the BSD only covers a part of the program (if it's a binary, I can't see how you could say "from offset 0x1234 to offset 0x5678, redistribution is subject to the following conditions" because the binary is a whole and every contributor owns a copyright on it). And actually, if the BSD license is only effective over the parts originally BSD-licensed, I really can't understand why the GPL is incompatible with the original BSD or the Apache license. Paul -- Home page: http://www.kallisys.com/ Newton-powered WebServer: http://newt.dyndns.org:8080/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
