hmm, on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:08:46AM -0700, David Schwartz said that > > As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not > > wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as > > in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies > > being allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B. > > You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep > GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to > modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the > right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*. > > This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license > notices has no effect on actual licenses.
but how do i know i have a bsd licensed file if the license notice has been removed from it? i know copyright applies to a file which has no (c) line in it, because it's implicit. but licenses are not implicit, are they? -f -- treat each day as your last, one day you will be right.
