On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:Yes, agreed. I was being sloppy. In actual practice, the GPL is more restrictive, aod so the terms of the GPL are what tend to have more effect, but you are absolutely correct. Yes, although actually, the place where the BSD license must be honored is in a binary distribution, since the BSD license and copyright attribution must be distributed as part of the binary distribution. (Even Microsoft does this when they use BSD code.) For a source distribution, retaining the copyright attribution and permission statement in the comments is sufficient to meet the BSD license requirements, and since the open source world normally deals mostly with source, we sometimes get sloppy with how we phrase things. Regards, - Ted -
| Linus Torvalds | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Mike Galbraith | Re: regression: CD burning (k3b) went broke |
| Con Kolivas | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 24/37] dccp: Processing Confirm options |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Woodhouse | Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" |
