* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Yet *having* that requirement on a *derived work* which includes GPL
> > code is *against* the terms of the GPL.  That's *exactly* the issue.
> > The GPL says more than "you must provide the source code to everything",
> > it explicitly includes a requirement that no additional restrictions be
> > put on the derivative (lest requirements for no-additional-distribution
> > or must-charge-for-other-distribution be added which defeats much of the
> > point of the GPL).
> Our BSD license has this restriction: 
> > provided that the above copyright notice and this
> > paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
> Why is this not an _additional_ restriction, and hence GPL and BSD
> software cannot be bundled into a binary?  What does "appear in all
> copies" mean, especially if you don't need to ship the source code under
> the BSD license?

As I pointed out previously, it's part of the copyright notice, and the
GPL has the exact same requirement:

  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
  source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
  conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
  copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
  notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
  and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
  along with the Program.

So it's *not* an additional restriction.  Not to mention the other
reason- the license isn't part of the *work*.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to