David Kastrup wrote:
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >    > Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
> >    > BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
> >    > licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
> >
> >    [...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have
> >    LGPL like clause that allows it.
> >
> > This is true.  The original work is still covered by the original
> > license.  What happens is a dual licensing, the original code is still
> > licensed under the BSD license, and the new code is licensed under the
> > GPL.
> Wrong.  You are spouting more and more nonsense.  If we are talking
> about the old BSDL, the licenses are incompatible. 

They are "incompatible" only in the GNU Republic.
>                                                    With the new one
> (without advertising clause), relicensing under the GPL is within the
> scope of the original license. 

You both are spouting nonsense. 
>                                Whoever receives the software _under_
> a different license has to heed the relicense.  That's what makes
> BSD-licensed software popular with outfits like Microsoft in the first
> place: they can relicense the BSD-licensed software under EULA. 

MS doesn't relicense BSD-licensed software under EULA. MS EULA 
is a contract about what you can and can not do with your copy 
of software (how you can use it). It doesn't convey any 
exclusive rights under copyright that belong to the copyright 

One can download some GNU pearl like emacs (binary), attach 
similar contract (e.g. in shrink-wrap form) to that copy, and 
distribute it to the FSF by snail mail. (Distribution is made
under "first sale".)

Got it now, GNUtians dak and ams?

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to