Re: Linuxsampler license

[Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>]

On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> > On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> > <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> > > > I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> > > > section 3 of the LGPL.
> > >
> > > Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
> > > distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
> > > 3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL.
> >
> > Being less restrictive doesn't make it the GPL. Neither BSD nor MIT
> > allow you to turn their licensing terms and conditions into GPL terms
> > and conditions.
> 
> As a matter of fact, they do. They give you plenty of control over your
> derivative work when you make it -- including the power to make your
> derivative work available under a more restrictive license. 

Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're right
that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms for *binary
form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for example, which even 
Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of contractual obligation to provide 
access to [modified] source code under original license, may I note).

regards,
alexander.