Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC
test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. In source code form, such
derivative works are subject to BSD and only the BSD -- you simply can't
modify/extend/etc. original license (unless you're the copyright owner
in original works).
Are you saying that if one creates a derived work from BSD-licensed
software, they can apply any additional licensing terms they wish to the
compiled binary output... but those terms would not apply to the source
code itself? I must say, that's an extremely BIZARRE distinction to
wrap my head around!
Eh, as long as he didn't modify any BSD'd code, all his works are GPL'd
and they are separate (literary) works from BSD'd (literary) works from
"A". And a combination (compilation) of all those works is another
non-derivative (under copyright law, not metaphysically) work and it is
subject neither to GPL nor BSD.
You've lost me on this point as well. Are you trying to say that
incorporation of another project's code into your own project does not
constitute a "derived work" so long as you don't modify the code you've
incorporated? Why is it then that if I build an application on
MS-Windows using the Cygwin port of GCC, even though I haven't altered a
single line of GPL'ed code, I am still forced to license my work under
the GPL... because Cygwin dynamically links my code to a GPL'ed DLL.
I understand that "compilations" are not subject to the GPL or BSD
(i.e. I could create a proprietary IDE by packaging a BSD'ed text editor
and the GCC compiler). However, it's always been my understand that
LITERALLY embedding someone else's code in your own software (including
static or dynamic linking) subjects you to the GPL. That's the entire
purpose behind the LGPL, isn't it?
I suppose that my understanding of the BSD license, in layman's terms,
consisted of the following conditions:
1) Do whatever you want from this code, including modifying it and/or
using it your own projects. Just don't try to misrepresent yourself as
the author of my original project. Likewise, don't use the name of my
project or myself to imply that I endorse anything you use it for.
3) Don't sue me if anything goes wrong.
If the BSD license does NOT translate into these conditions, can
someone please tell me of any open-source licenses that do so? These
are the wishes that I had in mind with past projects I licensed under
the BSD.
_______________________________________________
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
