2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra :

quoted text
> Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the

> software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it

> under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as

> dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might

> be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a

> dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that.

Hi.
My understanding is:
1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need

to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code.
2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or GPL.
So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to

re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however

does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice,

right?

--

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0