On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 05:46, Joe Moore wrote: > Joe Wreschnig said: > > On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote: > >> How is that harder with the FDL "History" section than with the > >> "clearly marked" BSD code, or the GPL-required changelog? > > > > The document trail in "History" may not exist anymore (or may be > > inadaquate); you can't just say "Oh, this Invariant Section didn't > > exist 2 years ago; I'll take it out and pretend I had that version." > > You need to actually have a license for that version. > > In other words, it is not at all harder with documents under the GFDL, than > it is with source under BSD, or the [L]GPL.
You can extract the BSD-licensed code from the proprietary code, and use
only it. There's no requirement in the BSD-licensed code that you must
distribute proprietary code that it was linked to at one point.
I don't know why you mention the GPL at all. You cannot combine code
under the GPL with proprietary software, nor can you have any kind of
invariant section in GPLd code.
> The GFDL is no more "viral" in this respect than any other source license
I hope this means "free software license" ^^^^^^
> that allows non-Free derived work.
Yes, it is. No other free license requires you keep the previously free
source forever proprietary-linked, once it has become such.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
