[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-hackers-public] Re: [ #548720] Explanation about permis

From: Mario Castelán Castro
Subject: [Savannah-hackers-public] Re: [ #548720] Explanation about permissive licences?
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 19:52:43 -0600

Hash: SHA256

February 6th 2010 for address@hidden copy to
address@hidden thread "Explanation about permissive

Thanks by your response, only one dobut:

>If different licenses are involved, it's required to state which
>licenses apply to which parts.

At what level I should state the copyright holder and licence?, by
function, by file, by line?.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


2010/2/6 Karl Berry via RT <address@hidden>:
> Hi Mario,
>    If me or some other person modify a file under the revised BSD licence
>    can he licence the result under any other licence he chose
> He can't change the license of the original code.  He can license his
> own new code in any compatible way.
> As a matter of practicality and courtesy, in GNU we generally recommend
> that modifications to RBSD'd code also be licensed under RBSD.  (Ditto
> for any similar permissive free software license.)
>     (Including propietary ones)?.
> RBSD code can be used in proprietary programs.  However, it's not that
> the RBSD code is being relicensed, but rather the RBSD is compatible
> with essentially anything, including proprietary terms.  The original
> code still exists, and it is still under RBSD.
>    Is required I put an separator something like "The original file is
>    licenced as follows: [...]"?.
> If different licenses are involved, it's required to state which
> licenses apply to which parts.
>    Do the same apply for the following licence or what are the
>    differences?:
> Looks like the ISC/OpenBSD license.  The wording is suboptimal, because
> of UW's prior weird interpretation of that phrasing ("use, copy, modify,
> and[/or] distribute").  We recommend using Expat or FreeBSD instead.
> See
> Anyway, yes, the same sort of thing of applies to all permissive free
> software licenses.
>    In both cases Won't the requirement to retain that notice qualify a
>    "futher restriction"?
> Assuming you mean a "further restriction" in GPL terms: no, because the
> GPL already requires that you keep intact notices in unmodified code,
> and update notices in modified code as needed.  So it's not "further".
> As a general rule: you can take
> as gospel.  It does not
> get changed without a lot of reviews and approvals (by rms, among
> others).
> RBSD is listed on that page as compatible with the GPL.  Therefore, you
> can ask yourself, "why is it compatible?", instead of thinking "wow,
> this looks like a further restriction, so it should be  incompatible".
> Hope this helps.  Best regards,
> address@hidden
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not official legal advice.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]