License Approval Process
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Tue Feb 15 21:06:16 UTC 2000
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> > The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
> > GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
> > In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
> > same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL.
> Ummm... I don't think so. For one, Nothing is commutatively compatible with
> the GPL -- software can't be redistributed under different terms. Also,
> if another license is as restrictive as the GPL, you probably can't license
> it under different terms either, and thus you can't redistribute under the
Oh, you are talking about relicensing. I was using "compatibility"
in the sense of distributing a derived work parts of which are under
two different licenses. Thus, no derived work can be partly under the
GPL and partly under the MPL (or at least you can make such a thing,
but not distribute it): thus GPL and MPL are incompatible. Not so
GPL and MIT/new BSD.
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
More information about the License-discuss