[Approval Request] BSD-Lite license

Paul Guyot pguyot at kallisys.net
Tue Nov 27 07:21:33 UTC 2001

À (At) 20:19 -0500 26/11/01, John Cowan écrivait (wrote) :
>  > There is nevertheless BSD clause #2. It says
>>  that if you release in binary form, you should also include the BSD
>>  license in the documentation.
>And so you must, but the license is not *effective* over the work as
>a whole, only the parts originally so licensed.  It must be included
>*as a piece of text*, but there is no BSD requirement that BSD
>works be *licensed* under the BSD (it is not a copyleft).


I'm aware of your objection, we talked about it earlier on this list 
(I summarized it in Solution #2, consider the BSD as decorative, but 
I can see that I don't give full consideration to your point).

My argument is that if I give you a program with, in the 
documentation, the GPL and the BSD, you have to respect both, not 
just the GPL (or just the BSD) because the BSD only covers a part of 
the program (if it's a binary, I can't see how you could say "from 
offset 0x1234 to offset 0x5678, redistribution is subject to the 
following conditions" because the binary is a whole and every 
contributor owns a copyright on it).

And actually, if the BSD license is only effective over the parts 
originally BSD-licensed, I really can't understand why the GPL is 
incompatible with the original BSD or the Apache license.

Home page: http://www.kallisys.com/
Newton-powered WebServer: http://newt.dyndns.org:8080/
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list