On 13/01/2017 20:29, John Cowan wrote:
When the BSD/ISC/MIT licenses say that you must include the text of the license in derivative works, that's exactly what is meant: the words of the license must be provided as part of the documentation. It does not mean that they must be incorporated into the license of the derived work, which can be whatever you want.
Good point. At end of this discussion, I will modify the post putting in the header the correct interpretation, or a link to this discussion, so my fault view can be useful also for others.
My answer to Chuck is appropiate also for you: if you read BSD and ISC without knowing in advance that they are permissive license, we can not apply my interpretation of terms (I concede this) but frankly I can not apply also your interpretation with enough confidence. Is a 50/50. BSD and ISC uses (IMHO) too much vague terms.
No problems with MIT, GPL and Apache. Regards, Massimo _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
