Hi, as for the subject:
None that would allow forth and back excange of copyrightable material. That's a design goal of GPL. Once in, always in. See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff > > with any other program and relicense the result as you wish Marek Mosiewicz wrote: > MIT/BSD license does not have any clue about changing license BSD/MIT are not intended to claim any restrictions beyond the obligation not to present as own brain work what was taken for free from BSD licensed software. I.e. you have to maintain authorship and copyright claims. It's a license for free science, not for commercial or political goals. > So how MIT/BSD could be compatible. It is a one-way relation, about which many BSD-licensing developers are not happy and some GPL licensers are somewhat embarrassed. We can take from them, they cannot take from us. But if both sides uphold their basic license goals, it cannot be made less injust to the BSD side. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the official classification of licenses by the Free Software Foundation regarding compatiblity with GPL see: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html About the licensed developed for or by the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html The FSF does not like the BSD licenses much https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html but GNU maintainers are known to make their own decisions. :)) Note that not necessarily the FSF but the copyright holder of the software issues the license. So the FSF's interpretation of its own legal text GPL still can be overridden by the actual issuer when it comes to legal disputes, especially since GPL is optimized for the U.S. legal system (cough) and thus might need in other court systems plausible clarifications by the license issuer. Have a nice day :) Thomas
