Subject: RE: GNU licence question
To: Graham, James <James.Graham@Schwab.COM>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/13/1997 13:52:22
On Tue, 13 May 1997, Graham, James wrote:
> I gather that the difference between GPL and Berkeley "licensing",
> if you can call it that, is that the GPV^HL explicitly states that you
> cannot distribute a binary-only version without also distributing
> the source at no extra cost, while if you wanted to you could sell
> the Berkeley source -- modified or unmodified (if you can find
> a sucker who doesn't know how to get the unmodified source)
> -- for any margin of profit you see fit between binary-only and
> source distributions.
As I understand it, with the Berkeley license, you don't have to
distribute the modified source. You just have to say that Berkeley (or
whomever) wrote it.