David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > > > Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth. > > > > http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673 > > (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo) > > > > "... Here are specific points I would make: > > > > 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to > > force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the > > downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the > > rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply > > wrap the BSDL in the GPL. > > That is nonsensical since the BSDL is not a strong copyleft license. I > mean, you can "wrap" it in Microsoft EULAs.
Microsoft EULAs are not copyright licenses you retard. > > > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses > > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense > > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). > > The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot. regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
