On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:56:34 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> there is an interesting email on the SPDX mailing list, distributing an
> article
> about the BSD and MIT license families. Here is a link to the page with the
> attached file.
>
> http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/201
Dear all,
there is an interesting email on the SPDX mailing list, distributing an article
about the BSD and MIT license families. Here is a link to the page with the
attached file.
http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/2012-December/000785.html
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Illkirch-Graff
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:49:50 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
[...]
> >So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become
> >licensed under both licenses? That is, did the originally-MIT
> >portions of m
holder's names
to promote the product) that the MIT license lacks.
Um, neither the BSD nor the MIT licenses have a clause saying 'You may
not add additional restrictions.'
Wonderful! Thanks for the clarification. :-)
So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c be
Joe Smith wrote:
> "Suraj N. Kurapati" wrote:
>> So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become
>> licensed under both licenses? That is, did the originally-MIT
>> portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD
>> license?
>
> That is an easy way to view it. Technica
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is it possible to extract the originally-MIT portions from the file
and act upon them only according to the MIT license?
Yes, because if you can extract the exact portions that are MIT
licensed there's no way you could tell the difference
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become
>> licensed under both licenses? That is, did the originally-MIT
>> portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD license?
>
> The comb
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wonderful! Thanks for the clarification. :-)
So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become
licensed under both licenses? That is, did the originally-MIT
portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD license?
pyright holder's names
to promote the product) that the MIT license lacks.
Um, neither the BSD nor the MIT licenses have a clause saying 'You may
not add additional restrictions.'
Wonderful! Thanks for the clarification. :-)
So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.
ense lacks.
>
> Um, neither the BSD nor the MIT licenses have a clause saying 'You may
> not add additional restrictions.'
Wonderful! Thanks for the clarification. :-)
So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become
licensed under both licenses? That is, did the
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Remarks
===
The BSD is not compatible with the MIT license because it has an
additional condition (i.e. you cannot use copyright holder's names
to promote the product) that the MIT license lacks.
Um, neither the BSD
Hello,
Please consider the following scenarios to help me better understand
whether BSD* and MIT code are "compatible".
*I am referring to the 3-clause BSD license:
http://opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/bsd-license.php
Scenario
Suppose that (1) I have two C source files (mit.c and
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:52:16 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Has anyone found another URL for the "real" X11 license (the one
> > that used to live at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html)?
>
> Gentoo has a fairly comprehensive collection of lice
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:39:56 + MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> I think that's the one. There are several often called MIT. Someone
>> has moved the copy on X.org to which
>> http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ links - has anyone
>> a new URL besides the fai
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:39:56 + MJ Ray wrote:
> I think that's the one. There are several often called MIT. Someone
> has moved the copy on X.org to which
> http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ links - has anyone
> a new URL besides the failed open source initiative, please?
AFAIK, the two
15 matches
Mail list logo
