Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does the modified BSD-license allow you to release forks under any > license, for example a proprietary one?
Yes. > Now, Microsoft Windows 95 is a well-known, proprietary system which > uses code from BSD. Thus, it includes the BSD copyright notice/license > in the distribution (the version I verifyed this with had it in > "ftp.exe"). Now, if anyone tries to distribute Microsoft Windows 95, > or parts of it, under the same terms as free BSDs, they'll get > harassed by Microsoft Corporation. Which is weird, since it says > (again, in "ftp.exe") "Redistribution and use in source and binary > forms, with or without modification, are permitted". Um, but that legend applies only to the BSD portions. It doesn't affect (for example) whatever modifications may have been made in creating a derived work. > What gives? Oh, and in one of RMS's speeches (which I love, glad it's > available in ogg format), he implies that the GNU project could've > made a copylefted fork of X windows, but chose not to. Sure.
