question about bsd-style license requirements - accidental recipr ocity?

[Chad.Woodford at windriver.com]

I understand that this list is primarily devoted to discussing open source
license approval.  However, for lack of a better place to raise my question,
and at the suggestion of Russ Nelson, I am posting my question here.  I am
dealing with an issue involving a license in every way similar to the most
recent BSD/academic-style license.  I.e.,
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php.  Basically, we would
like to take smaller groupings of lines of code--snippets, if you will--from
a piece of software licensed under that license and incorporate them into
proprietary code, which is released under a proprietary source code license.
I'm curious about the logistics of doing this.
 
Here is what I am thinking:  The academic-style license can be broken down
into three or four parts, depending on whether you include the copyright
notice.  The three basic parts are the rights-granting part, the list of
conditions, and the disclaimers.  Where you are copying or modifying the
code, condition #1 requires you to reproduce the copyright notice and the
list of conditions (and the disclaimers).  So does that mean that you can
omit what I am calling the rights-granting part when you copy the code into
a larger proprietary work?  Because if you don't then it seems that the
license would create at least an apparent reciprocity obligation for the
particular file it is copied into.  I mean to the uninformed observer, that
pesky rights-granting part would appear to apply to the entire source code
file.  
 
The reason I'm asking is that, although omitting the rights-granting part
seems to make sense, I have never seen this done.  Nor have I seen this
approach discussed anywhere (including Mr. Rosen's wonderful OSS book).
Perhaps this is because it is legally acceptable to take this approach but,
within the OSS community, morally unacceptable?

I suppose an alternative approach for the above scenario would be to insert
additional verbiage above the license text which says that some of the
source code in the file is licensed under the academic license and some is
licensed under the proprietary source code license.  But that is a bit
messier; not quite as elegant.
 
I posted my question here earlier:
 
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/free.software.open-source/browse_frm/thr
ead/87cb2d346cf4e8b0
 
But it looks like most of the activity on that group is spam.  Also, it is
not a part of the usenet feed so perhaps there is some resistance there.
 
Anyway, thanks in advance.
 
Chad