Hello! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:54:38AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:Which is exactly one characteristic of BSD vs. GPL, that BSD doesn't require you to distribute source should you chose to distribute binaries (as permitted by the BSD license). IMO it's by copyright law itself. Relicensing/sublicensing is by default a reserved right, so it has to be explicitly granted in a license if licensees should be allowed to relicense/sublicense. That explicit grant is *not* present in the BSD/ISC licenses I've looked at in this moment. The BSD/ISC licenses grant the rights (that are reserved by copyright law) to use, (re)distribute and modify the work itself, and *those* rights are bound by only few conditions (fewer than the GPL imposes). Of course, you may make a derived/combined work where your own contribution is of a different license. But the original part of the work remains BSD/ISC licensed. The combined work is only usable when a licensee can fulfill the conditions of *both* licenses in order to be granted the rights granted by *both* licenses. As said, IMO and as far as I understand, it's not a matter of the licenses themselves, but of copyright law itself. It's a matter that the licenses (both BSD/ISC *and* GPL) have no clauses permitting re/sublicensing. Kind regards, Hannah.
|Greg KH||Og dreams of kernels|
|Jens Axboe||[PATCH 31/33] Fusion: sg chaining support|
|Arnd Bergmann||Re: finding your own dead "CONFIG_" variables|
|Mark Brown||[PATCH 2/2] Subject: natsemi: Allow users to disable workaround for DspCfg reset|
|Tony Breeds||[LGUEST] Look in object dir for .config|
|Brian Downing||Re: Git in a Nutshell guide|
|John Benes||Re: master has some toys|