"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With the new one (without advertising clause), relicensing under > the GPL is within the scope of the original license. > > Only the copyright holder has the legal right to _relicense_ the > work. I.e. change the license of the original copyright code.
Oh nonsense. If the original license permits usage in a context with different conditions, of course anybody can do so. That is the distinguishing feature of the BSD licenses as opposed to the GPL: the freedom to distribute under unfree conditions. > > Only person who can re-license something is the copyright > > holder. > > Wrong. The only person who can give _permission_ to sublicense > is the copyright holder. > > Sub-license != _re_-license. > > Re-license ==> Changing the license. Your point being what? Whatever license you get the stuff under is valid. > Once again, only the copyright holder can change the license of the > work, i.e. re-license it. When you combine a modified-BSD-license > (just so that David who doesn't understand assumptions grasps this) > licensed, you are dual licensing the work, part of it is under the > modifed-BSD license, and part of it is under the new license, for > example the GPL. Uh, Microsoft is relicensing a whole bunch of BSD software. Quite a bit from their network stack. BSD is a source license. Where is the source for the BSD parts? Obviously, this is not a dual-license scheme. > When you relicense a work, you can _remove_ the original license. > This is not allowed with the modified-BSD license. But the conditions of modified-BSD don't prohibit binary-only distribution even though BSD is a source license. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnufirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss