[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linuxsampler license

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:08:33 -0300 Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:

> > 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).
> No, no and no. Full text of MIT/X11 license:
[Underlined text of the X11 license]

Right. I agree that Alexander seems to be wrong.

With MIT and BSD licenses, you are granted permission to modify and
redistribute the modified software under a more restrictive license. In
source or other form.
Parts that are taken from the original software are still under the
original license, but any contribution you add to the code may be under
any other license (even a proprietary one).
Anyone who would like to deal with the modified version must comply with
*both* licenses (unless she manages to extract the parts that are still
under the original license and deal with them only) and of course the
most restrictive of the two imposes the major constraints...

> This is why this license style is also called 2-clause BSD: the only
> conditions are:
> 1. the copyright notice and the license text appear in all copies;
> and
> 2. the copyright notice and license text appear in supporting
> documentation.
> no conditions on source, binaries, or similar stuff.

Please do not confuse MIT licenses with BSD ones.
The 2-clause BSD license is so called because of its bulleted list (or
enumaration) of conditions that contains 2 items.
The 3-clause BSD license includes 3 items instead.
Similarly for 4-clause BSD...

The X11 license does not include a bulleted list of conditions.
Neither does the Expat license.

Text of mentioned licenses:

Expat (a.k.a. MIT)  http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
 X11  (a.k.a. MIT)  http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html
2-clause BSD        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html
3-clause BSD        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html
4-clause BSD        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_4Clause.html

as you may remember, the 4-clause BSD is *not* a recommended license,
since it has the obnoxious advertising clause...

    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgphLvKGO8GwD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: