[License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Fri Jan 13 19:29:31 UTC 2017

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Massimo Zaniboni <
massimo.zaniboni at asterisell.com> wrote:

Probably I'm wrong, but I'm curious to understand where. So if someone has
> the patience to read the post,  can report here a fault part of my
> reasoning, so I can understand better and maybe discuss?

I added a comment to your post saying this:

Your conclusions are incorrect because you are jumping to a single
conclusion that is not justified. When the BSD/ISC/MIT licenses say that
you must include the text of the license in derivative works, that's
exactly what is meant: the words of the license must be provided as part of
the documentation. It does not mean that they must be incorporated into the
license of the derived work, which can be whatever you want.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170113/941e2ba6/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list