Re: ??:Re: Change from BSDL to GPL?

["matthew sporleder" <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 5/5/08, Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79%yahoo.com@localhost> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 5/5/08, Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost> wrote:
>
>  > From: Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>
>  > Subject: Re: ??:Re: Change from BSDL to GPL?
>  > To: "James Chacon" <jmc%netbsd.org@localhost>, "Eric Haszlakiewicz" 
> <erh%nimenees.com@localhost>
>  > Cc: tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost
>  > Received: Monday, May 5, 2008, 1:46 PM
>  > On May 5, 12:01pm, jmc%netbsd.org@localhost (James Chacon) wrote:
>  > -- Subject: Re: ??:Re: Change from BSDL to GPL?
>  >
>  > |
>  > | On May 5, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
>  > | > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 02:39:05PM +0000, Christos
>  > Zoulas wrote:
>  > | >> In article
>  > <42f3a3efb7.3efb742f3a%shtel.net.cn@localhost>,
>  > <hlwhyw%shtel.net.cn@localhost
>  > | >> > wrote:
>  > | >>> Hi,
>  > | >>> I mean that I reserve the original BSD
>  > licence.
>  > | >>> Except that I append a GPL licence at the
>  > end of
>  > | >>> BSD licence in source code.
>  > | >>
>  > | >> You cannot append both licenses and have them
>  > both in force at the
>  > | >> same time since they have conflicting terms. You
>  > can dual-license
>  > | >> your code, i.e. allow it to be distributed
>  > either by the BSD or
>  > | >> the GPL license.
>  > | >>
>  > | >> christos
>  > | >
>  > | > Dual licensing won't help in this case, since
>  > the BSD code needs to
>  > | > remain
>  > | > BSD licensed.
>  > |
>  > | I believe Christos is referring to any mods. You can dual
>  > license your
>  > | own code all you want.
>  > |
>  > | What you cannot do is change the BSD licensed code to a
>  > new license.
>  >
>  > Exactly, this is why I said "your code" instead
>  > of the BSD networking
>  > code.
>  >
>  > Thanks for the clarification Jim. Of course you cannot
>  > re-license other
>  > peoples' code. This is what the license states!
>  >
>  > christos
>
>  The BSD license is not like the GPL license. BSD code has gone for years 
> into commercial products--with commercial (i.e. not BSD) licensing. For 
> example, Microsoft Windows (maybe this has changed but it was true in the 
> past).
>
>  What the BSD license requires is that derivatives retain the copyright 
> notice. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. Does commercial software that 
> uses BSD code have to be under the BSD license (which is what would be 
> required if it were the GPL)? I thought that was one reason some prefer the 
> "more free" BSD license.




You could distribute GPL licensed patches to BSD licensed code, but
you would still need to satisfy the BSD license by crediting the
copyright holder after you compiled. (modified or unmodified -- please
read the license)

If you just wanted to make changes to BSD licensed code, your only
obligation is, as above, to credit the copyright holder.

However, under no circumstances may you relicense the BSD licensed
code without the permission of the copyright holder.

I believe the main problem with the BSD license for the GNU project is
the advertising clause.