On 20/01/2008, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20/01/2008, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It's worth noting that license 5 is the weakest level of control a developer > > can exert. Someone can take your work and either restrict your ability to > > take > > changes (that you can release as 5) by either re-releasing your work in a > > derivative licensed under 4) or 1). > > This is a common misconception.
I'd like to retract my assertion that Michael misconceived of the licensing situation for "5" style licenses in relation to "4" style ones. What he says above is correct, and I apologise for suggesting otherwise. There is an issue related to what he said that I am reminded of by what he said: Wanting a BSD only codebase is substantially different from GPL parts _needing_ the whole codebase to be GPL. If someone _wants_ a codebase to remain _fully_ under "5" style (X11) licenses, they will not be able to do so if someone makes a contribution to the codebase under a "4" style (GPL) license. But there is no _need_ for a codebase to remain fully under X11 style licenses, and no _need_ for a codebase to remain fully under GPL style licenses either. It is possible for a codebase to be a mix of X11 and GPL style licenses, even having code under two licenses in one file. The GPL does not require all code in a program to be GPL, only to be GPL compatible. -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
