On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
quoted text
> 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org>:
> > 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.

Two sets, actually, that interssect for the most portion of them.

quoted text
> 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?

If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's
conditions, not the BSD ones.

Anyway, it's a moot point since the SFLC found a much more polite way of
converting to the GNU GPL without needing to remove it.

Rui

-- 
Wibble.
Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?