In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
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?
By the way, if it is the *true* BSD licence (ie the code is copyright
Berkeley University :-) then the BSD and the MIT stuff are equivalent.
Berkeley has, to the best of my knowledge, deleted clause 3 from all the
software to which they own the copyright. (Precisely because it was
incompatible with the GPL, I believe...)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
