Re: BSD & MIT licenses compatible?

["Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com>]

"Suraj N. Kurapati" <skurapat@ucsc.edu> wrote in message 
46205DF5.7020307@ucsc.edu">news:46205DF5.7020307@ucsc.edu...
> Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati <skurapat@ucsc.edu> wrote:
> > > The BSD is not compatible with the MIT license because it has an
> > > additional condition (i.e. you cannot use copyright holder's names
> > > to promote the product) that the MIT license lacks.
> >
> > Um, neither the BSD nor the MIT licenses have a clause saying 'You may
> > not add additional restrictions.'
>
> Wonderful! Thanks for the clarification. :-)
>
> So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become
> licensed under both licenses?  That is, did the originally-MIT
> portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD license?
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
That is an easy way to view it. Technically, what you had said before is 
perfectly correct, but
thinking of the file as being licenced under the combination of the 
conditions is also perfectly valid
(as long as you realize that if the parts are seperated, the original lices 
still apply, of course).

In summary, just make sure you meet all the terms of both, and you are fine.