On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:47:40PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
>> You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author
>> consent period!
>>
>> That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
>> including distributing the code under other licenses. The only
>> requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.
> [snip]
>
> Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you may
> write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify my
> license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:
If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
proprietary application under a proprietary licence, and there is no
requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
licence by the proprietary developers.
If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
free application under the GNU General Public Licence, and there is no
requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
licence by the GPL-software developers.
Now, I must admit that the second part doesn't seem quite right to me,
and I believe that the GPL-software developers should release any
changes to your sections of the code under your licence. However, why is
it perfectly okay for proprietary software developers to behave in this
way and not for free software developers?
The BSD licence doesn't allow the changing of the licence, but it
doesn't prevent extra restrictions being added to it. The extra
restrictions may be a proprietary EULA, or they may be the GPL's
requirement for source distribution. There's no difference, from the
point of view of the BSD licence; it's all just additional restrictions.
Ben
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had
a name of signature.asc]
