Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> > <email@example.com> 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).