Re: Linuxsampler license
> On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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. This is
exactly what copyleft licenses (L?GPL et alli) restrict -- if you make
a derivative work and the original work is copyleft-licensed, you
usually cannot make your derivative available under any license other
than the original license itself.