2007/9/5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: > > 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the > > > software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it > > > under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as > > > dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might > > > be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a > > > dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that. > > > > > > Hi. > > > > My understanding is: > > > > 1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need > > to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code. > > Two sets, actually, that interssect for the most portion of them. > > > 2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or > > GPL. > > > > So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to > > re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however > > does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice, > > right? > > If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's > conditions, not the BSD ones.
GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under certain conditions), but not re-license, right? BTW, if satisfying requires in GPL would imply satisfaction of BSDL anyway, no? > > Rui > > -- > Wibble. > Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > + Whatever you do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...? > -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
