Qt/Embedded

[David Johnson]

On Monday 13 November 2000 12:25 am, kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:

> The governing principles are, as I understand, these:
>
>   - The GPL requires that derived works of the original work not add or
>     remove licensing and/or redistribution terms.
>
>   - The BSD (non-advertising clause) and MIT licenses allow modification
>     of distribution terms, so long as a copyright notice is retained.
>
>   - The copyright notice requirement of the BSD/MIT licenses is
>     consistant with a similar copyright notice requirement of the GNU
>     GPL.  Therefore the BSD/MIT licenses are convertible to the GPL.

All true enough. However, that still means that I can't license my 
application under the BSD license. Because if my application is a derivative 
work (and RMS thinks it is), then my BSD license removes distribution terms. 
This is perfectly acceptable on my end, as I'm not distributing any GPL code.

> In the instance you describe above, BSD/MIT code could link to or
> incorporate GPL code, but only if the derived work were distributed
> under the terms of the GNU GPL.

But then I'm not distributing it under the BSD/MIT license :-) It's sort of 
like saying I can vote Democrat or Republican, so long as I vote Democrat. It 
makes no sense to say its okay to use the BSD license so long as I distribute 
under the GPL.

> I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to here.  "Independent
> and seperate works" doesn't appear in the GPL, what are you quoting?

Okay, okay. So I spelled "seperate" wrong! Look under section 2, the fifth 
paragraph, and the second sentence.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org