Skip to main content
Software Engineering

Return to Answer

deleted 288 characters in body
Source Link
Kaz
Kaz
  • 3.7k
  • 1
  • 21
  • 32

Disclaimer: IANAL!

The extra clause does nothing which pointcondition 1 does not already do, so it is pointless:

"1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."

This already says that basically you cannot change the license. Because "the above copyright noticenotice", which means you cannot change"this list of conditions" and "the following disclaimer" constitute the source file from BSDentire license to something else. You can't change a thing.

Also, note how the addition of the useless extra clause is erroneouswrecks the organization of the license. PointClauses 1 saysand 2 ("this list of conditions") refer to the "above copyright notice" and the "following disclaimer". This means that everything which follows the list of conditions is a disclaimer. So any additional conditions must be added to the list, before the disclaimer. Additional conditions should not be added after the disclaimer.

The license is compatible with the GPL because you can use that source file in a GPL-ed program. BSD sources which do not have that extra clause are nevertheless used in such a way that the original license is left in place (in compliance with clause 1).

By By including BSD licensed modules in a program, you are not changing the source code license of those modules to GPL.

The BSD license is compatible with the GPL in the sense that if a GPL-ed project bundles BSD code, it has no impact on any of its redistribution terms or other requirements. The BSD bits can be carried along, and they can be modified. The code can be used in all the ways that the GPL-ed code can be used.

Note that the above license even with the extra clause still allows more than the GPL, in that you can compile the code and ship proprietary binaries without source code.

Disclaimer: IANAL!

The extra clause does nothing which point 1 does not already do, so it is pointless:

"1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."

This already says that basically you cannot change the copyright notice, which means you cannot change the source file from BSD license to something else.

Also, note how the addition of the clause is erroneous. Point 1 says "following disclaimer". This means that everything which follows is a disclaimer.

The license is compatible with the GPL because you can use that source file in a GPL-ed program. BSD sources which do not have that extra clause are nevertheless used in such a way that the original license is left in place (in compliance with clause 1).

By including BSD licensed modules in a program, you are not changing the source code license of those modules to GPL.

The BSD license is compatible with the GPL in the sense that if a GPL-ed project bundles BSD code, it has no impact on any of its redistribution terms or other requirements. The BSD bits can be carried along, and they can be modified. The code can be used in all the ways that the GPL-ed code can be used.

Note that the above license even with the extra clause still allows more than the GPL, in that you can compile the code and ship proprietary binaries without source code.

Disclaimer: IANAL!

The extra clause does nothing which condition 1 does not already do, so it is pointless:

"1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."

This already says that basically you cannot change the license. Because "the above copyright notice", "this list of conditions" and "the following disclaimer" constitute the entire license. You can't change a thing.

Also, note how the addition of the useless extra clause wrecks the organization of the license. Clauses 1 and 2 ("this list of conditions") refer to the "above copyright notice" and the "following disclaimer". This means that everything which follows the list of conditions is a disclaimer. So any additional conditions must be added to the list, before the disclaimer. Additional conditions should not be added after the disclaimer.

The license is compatible with the GPL because you can use that source file in a GPL-ed program. By including BSD licensed modules in a program, you are not changing the source code license of those modules to GPL.

Source Link
Kaz
Kaz
  • 3.7k
  • 1
  • 21
  • 32

Disclaimer: IANAL!

The extra clause does nothing which point 1 does not already do, so it is pointless:

"1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."

This already says that basically you cannot change the copyright notice, which means you cannot change the source file from BSD license to something else.

Also, note how the addition of the clause is erroneous. Point 1 says "following disclaimer". This means that everything which follows is a disclaimer.

The license is compatible with the GPL because you can use that source file in a GPL-ed program. BSD sources which do not have that extra clause are nevertheless used in such a way that the original license is left in place (in compliance with clause 1).

By including BSD licensed modules in a program, you are not changing the source code license of those modules to GPL.

The BSD license is compatible with the GPL in the sense that if a GPL-ed project bundles BSD code, it has no impact on any of its redistribution terms or other requirements. The BSD bits can be carried along, and they can be modified. The code can be used in all the ways that the GPL-ed code can be used.

Note that the above license even with the extra clause still allows more than the GPL, in that you can compile the code and ship proprietary binaries without source code.