[Approval Request] BSD-Lite license

Chris Gehlker gehlker at fastq.com
Tue Nov 27 18:03:27 UTC 2001

On 11/26/01 3:54 PM, "David Johnson" <david at usermode.org> wrote:

> I wasn't aware that there was a problem with BSD-GPL compatibility. There are
> many GPLd projects with some source files under the BSD license (KDE, Linux,
> etc.) with narry a complaint from anyone who ever spent time reading the
> licences in question.
> I've read over your arguments in your GPL/BSD page, and although I disagree
> that you are a "silly wanker", you are still wrong. Here's why:

I also looked at his site and I see what's bothering him. It's the language
which says "distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License,
whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus
to EACH AND EVERY PART (emphasis added) regardless of who wrote it.

I have no idea what "each and every part" means in this context. Maybe it's
just silly wanking on the part of RMS. It clearly doesn't mean what he fears
it means, and what it appears to mean on its face. To whit, by including a
BSD part in a GPL whole you are somehow retroactively changing the BSD
license. That would be nonsense.

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list