Re: FWD: Bug#121916: analog should be in non-free
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> Because there is really just not an issue. Are you trying to make up
> issues where none exist? Are you genuinely confused?
>
> Perhaps, as I suspect, you are trying to read licenses as if they were
> computer programs. Licenses are interpreted by humans, who are
> allowed (nay, required!) to use judgment.
>
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.
I'm not trying to make issues where none exist. Perhaps I am confused, I
don't know. But no-one's yet explained my mistake to me.
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?
I realise I'm blundering around in a group of licensing experts here. But
maybe someone can explain if, and where, I'm going wrong.
--
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
"This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lost 7 matches." BBC, 2/Jul/01
Reply to: