2007/9/5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra :

quoted text
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:

> > 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra :

> > > 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?
>

quoted text
> 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