[Approval Request] BSD-Lite license

[Chris Gehlker]

On 11/27/01 11:29 AM, "John Cowan" <jcowan at reutershealth.com> wrote:

> Chris Gehlker wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> I think it means exactly what it says: if you release a work
> under the GPL, then every part of the work must allow recipients to do
> all the things that the GPL allows.  There can be no components that
> aren't freely distributable, or that don't allow further derivative
> works, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> This is fundamentally why the GPL is compatible only with licenses
> that allow all of what the GPL allows (or more), and forbid only what
> the GPL forbids (or less).

Aha, It's the PERMISSIONS that extend to "each and every part." Any
restrictions extend to the whole but not necessarily to every part. Thanks
for clearing that up. I finally understand why the GPL in incompatible with
licenses that are more viral than it is.
--
In the midst of great joy, do not promise anyone anything. In the midst of
great anger, do not answer anyone's letter. -Chinese proverb

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