Re: FWD: Bug#121916: analog should be in non-free
Stephen Turner <analog-author@lists.isite.net> writes:
> Humans are also required to follow the text of the licence, and not let
> things through just because we think they ought to have been allowed.
But we're not wondering whether or not they ought to be allowed: the
FSF has, by explicit example, demonstrated the authoritative
interpretation. It would be awfully hard for them to sue for doing
the same thing yourself.
> Let me try and restate my reasoning. When making a derived work from GPL
> source, you are not allowed to add extra, more restrictive conditions on
> top of the GPL conditions. But the (new) BSD licence does impose an extra
> condition, namely the condition to reproduce the BSD licence. It's not an
> onerous condition, or a condition that damages freeness -- but it is an
> extra condition. So how can one make a work derived from both BSD and GPL
> source?
Um, the GPL already requires that you keep all the "appropriate
copyright notices" intact. So the BSD license is not adding some new
condition at all; it's repeating a portion of the GPL's condition.
Reply to: