"Suraj N. Kurapati" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 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 originally-MIT
portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD license?
Thanks for your consideration.
That is an easy way to view it. Technically, what you had said before is
perfectly correct, but
thinking of the file as being licenced under the combination of the
conditions is also perfectly valid
(as long as you realize that if the parts are seperated, the original lices
still apply, of course).
In summary, just make sure you meet all the terms of both, and you are fine.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
