"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

I can infact extract BSD licensed code from an GPLed program, if I am
entierly sure that the code that is extracted does not contain any
GPLed bits.  Hence why this is not relicencing, but dual licensing.

So no relicensing happened, a dual license is in effect.

If you could infact relicense BSD licensed code, then one could remove
the copyright notice with the license blurb, you cannot.

   > 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

No, they are dual licensing it under two licenses.  Microsoft cannot
change the license of a BSD licensed work.  They have to include the
copyright notice, and the license in their source code.

   > 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.

I have no idea what this means.  I can license binary-only stuff under
the BSD license if I so wish.  There is nothing `source' specific
about it, the same goes for any license.

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to