On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 12:35:18AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
quoted text
> The basis of your argument appears to be that you interpret the last
> paragraph above (starting with "Alternatively") as explicit permission
> to replace all of the previous material (starting with "Redistribution
> and use") with the GPLv2.  Is this inference correct?

The basis of your argument is thinking the copyright notice is anything
more than (c) years, Fu Bar is mandatory and unchangeable.

It is incorrect. The copyright notice is *only* (c) years, Fu Bar
All rest is informational.

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.

If he does distribute under the GNU GPL v2 and doesn't remove the licensed
under the BSD, he's not being honest.

quoted text
> IANAL, so I'm not going to speculate on the correct legal interpretation
> of this text; I will grant that, if it were ordinary speech, I can see
> how someone who tried hard enough could believe that interpretation.

Actually, you do really have to try hard to justify *your* interpretation,
since the meaning of *alternatively* and what a copyright notice is, is
a little beyond reality.

quoted text
> the license text in this case is, at the very least, behaving
> unethically.

I actually think it's unethical to give a gift virtually without strings
attached and then crying like a baby because people don't give back
anything.

Rui

-- 
Hail Eris, Hack Linux!
Today is Sweetmorn, the 27th 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...?