2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the > software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it > under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as > dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might > be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a > dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that.
Hi. My understanding is: 1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code. 2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or GPL. So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice, right? -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
