-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 February 6th 2010 for [email protected] copy to [email protected] thread "Explanation about permissive licences?".
Thanks by your response, only one dobut: >If different licenses are involved, it's required to state which >licenses apply to which parts. At what level I should state the copyright holder and licence?, by function, by file, by line?. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAktuHF8ACgkQZ4DA0TLic4hTawCdHCHKcRD5CddVfxjmIlgJGT8w mF4AoIvG2d0qMRJqhs09KDvHS3NB6H8S =03CO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 2010/2/6 Karl Berry via RT <[email protected]>: > Hi Mario, > > If me or some other person modify a file under the revised BSD licence > can he licence the result under any other licence he chose > > He can't change the license of the original code. He can license his > own new code in any compatible way. > > As a matter of practicality and courtesy, in GNU we generally recommend > that modifications to RBSD'd code also be licensed under RBSD. (Ditto > for any similar permissive free software license.) > > (Including propietary ones)?. > > RBSD code can be used in proprietary programs. However, it's not that > the RBSD code is being relicensed, but rather the RBSD is compatible > with essentially anything, including proprietary terms. The original > code still exists, and it is still under RBSD. > > Is required I put an separator something like "The original file is > licenced as follows: [...]"?. > > If different licenses are involved, it's required to state which > licenses apply to which parts. > > Do the same apply for the following licence or what are the > differences?: > > Looks like the ISC/OpenBSD license. The wording is suboptimal, because > of UW's prior weird interpretation of that phrasing ("use, copy, modify, > and[/or] distribute"). We recommend using Expat or FreeBSD instead. > See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ISC. > > Anyway, yes, the same sort of thing of applies to all permissive free > software licenses. > > In both cases Won't the requirement to retain that notice qualify a > "futher restriction"? > > Assuming you mean a "further restriction" in GPL terms: no, because the > GPL already requires that you keep intact notices in unmodified code, > and update notices in modified code as needed. So it's not "further". > > As a general rule: you can take > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html as gospel. It does not > get changed without a lot of reviews and approvals (by rms, among > others). > > RBSD is listed on that page as compatible with the GPL. Therefore, you > can ask yourself, "why is it compatible?", instead of thinking "wow, > this looks like a further restriction, so it should be incompatible". > > Hope this helps. Best regards, > [email protected] > > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not official legal advice. > > > >
