* Mikhael Goikhman <migo_at_homemail.com> [2004-01-07 20:35]:
> Ok, I think I have no problem if the code in the script is under the
> new BSDL (I didn't recognize it), and the resulting script executable is
> covered by the GNU GPL, as quoted.
>
> However I think it may be considered good if all code that depends on the
> GNU GPL'd library is at least dual licensed, making derivatives under GNU
> GPL trivial (or interoperability trivial, for this reason). Currently my
> understanding is that the BSDL header should be left untouched in the
> derived GPL'd work, that is a nonsense.
>
> If my understanding is wrong and the BSDL header (anything under the
> copyright notice) may be just replaced with the GNU GPL'd header then
> there is no any issue.
Well in contrast to the GPL the main point of the (modified)
BSD-License is to give credit to the author, so the copyright
line and the two license conditions and the disclaimer need to be
preserved. I think the GPL header is quite similar to this, see
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC4
But other than that there are no restrictions, everybody is free
to do whatever her or she wants to do with it, it may be included
in a GPL'd project or it may even be used in a commercial closed
source program. I prefer this kind of freedom but I have no
objections against the GPL either, it's a matter of philosophy
and personal preference. Should I ever write something which is
less simple and more useful or which might even be included in
fvwm I will put it under the GPL (which is probably longer than
this tiny module).
--
Guido Berhoerster ich_at_guido-berhoerster.org
http://www.guido-berhoerster.org/
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Thu Jan 08 2004 - 05:14:08 GMT