On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:41:40PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:00:11AM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote: > > > > It turns out that Berkeley has changed the licesne on 4.4BSD-Lite, and you > > can now mix it with GPL. So find a copy of 4.4BSD_Lite that has been > > changed according to Berkeley's instructions and you're set. > > Maybe you can, and maybe you can't. One of the clauses of the GPL > prohibits "any other restrictions" -- you tell me just how another > legally binding license can be non-null and yet impose no restrictions. The point of contention between GPL and BSD licensing I've heard discussed was the advertizing clause, because it was a restriction in addition to the ones that the GPL had. To answer your direct question, all of the discussions I have read regarding the GPL indicated that "any other restrictions" referred to restrictions of a type unlike the other ones imposed by the GPL. Thus the advertizing clause was a restriction unlike those of the GPL (and more restrictive), and thus wasn't OK. My recollection is that I have, I believe it was 7 years ago, read BSD-licensed (w/o advertizing clause) source files in the Linux kernel. Such a thing would not be legal given the interpretation of "other restrictions" you imply above. Now, I realize that what I saw or was told was not necessarily legal (it could have been in error). However, at some point, arguing an interpretation that disagrees with common usage gets difficult. Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpARaK50HwWI.pgp
Description: PGP signature