Re: GPLizing BSD licensed sources
Yaroslav Halchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I am looking for a quick hint. lush project ships sources of modified
> version of libsvm which is released under BSD license. Since lush is
> GPLed, and they heavily modified those libsvm sources, they added a
> generic copyright + GPL excerpt on top above original BSD license.
> Please see
> for an example.
(Thanks to Francesco for posting the entire text in this thread.
Yaroslav, it's helpful to have the license text directly in the same
thread as the discussion.)
> Although no clause of BSD license seems to be violated, I still have
> some unpleasant aftertaste. Am I right that technically it is ok?
It seems technically fine, and clearly DFSG-free, to me.
What is the unpleasant aftertaste you have? Re-licensing BSD-licensed
works is a touted by proponents of that license as a feature.
> or may be file needs cleaner header which would state explicitly
> that only modifications since original version LIBSVM-2.5 are under
> GPL and copyrighted by lush authors?
The GPL, section 2a, requires (effectively) a changelog be maintained
for the software. Does that satisfy the above concern?
\ "The restriction of knowledge to an elite group destroys the |
`\ spirit of society and leads to its intellectual |
_o__) impoverishment." —Albert Einstein |