>I'm not sure, since that clause is basically obsolete (though the >Apache License still has it). I think that it applies to all >derivative works, however.
What's the difference with clause 1 and 2, they don't apply to all derivative works? (this was my primary problem, sorry to repeat it). >What things? Clause 1 of the GPL requires maintenance of the copyright >notice, the warranty disclaimer, and (references to) the license itself. >Same requirements. > >At a very picky level, you could claim that the BSD requires you to >keep *the BSD* with the code, whereas the GPL requires you to keep >*the GPL* with the code, and that these are technically different >requirements. But this does not pass what American lawyers call >"the laugh test": if you make it in court, will the judge be able >to keep a straight face? I'm happy to make you laugh. So what you say is that, clause 1: >Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. means that I have to retain the list of conditions from the BSD license or the list of conditions from another license (say GPL) if my code is licensed under this other license? I think I definitely have a problem with the semantic of this. >The license need not be provided with the documentation as long as it >is provided with "other materials". The typical case is to keep it with >the source code and in a separate file. It's not what I meant. You seem to say that I can delete the list of conditions of the BSD license if I release the software under another license saying that the copyright notice, the warranty disclaimer and the license should be kept. Paul -- Home page: http://www.kallisys.com/ Newton-powered WebServer: http://newt.dyndns.org:8080/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
