mån 2003-05-12 klockan 09.33 skrev David Neary: > > > The BSD/Artistic/Apache type licences all permit relicencing, so > > > why not just relicence to GPL, and keep the advertising clause as > > > originally requested? > > > > It is an additional restriction and thus clearly deemed incompatible > > with the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD). > > Additional restrictions are not allowed. > > To be quite honest, I think this is GNU throwing a hissy fit > because BSD people don't agree with them. I believe that any > challenge to the licencing of code as GPL because it contains BSD > code would fail. I doubt that, as the revised BSD license without the advertizing clause has been deemed perfectly compatible with the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses). Clearly, it's the advertising clause that causes problems. > > > If someone can give me a decent explanation why the advertising > > > clause is a limitation on the liberty to modify the software, I'd > > > like to hear it. Otherwise, none of this code will cause me to > > > lose any sleep. > > > > It's still free software. It's just not compatible with the GPL. > > I find it ridiculous that it's OK with the BSD/Apache/Artistic > licence people that anyone can use their code for whatever they > want, including relicencing the code, but the GPL (or rather GNU) > people refuse to accept the code. That's the nature of the GPL. It takes measures to enforce some sort of "guaranteed" level of freedom, regardless if you like that or not. As such, it explicitly prohibits the use of any additional restrictions, however they may look like. And as such, any license that imposes additional restrictions, however free that license may otherwise be, is incompatible with the GPL. > The GPL, in spirit, is very clear - GPL licenced code which is > modified must be released under the GPL. Great. The BSD type > licences are very clear too - do whatever you want, just say > where the code came from in a comment. Great. Now, why not > include BSD code, do whatever we want with it (basically, > relicence it as GPL code), and leave the comment in? Because the GPL does not allow additional restrictions. If you add additional restrictions, the license conditions are void and the software is not GPL licensed anymore -- and may not even be redistributable at all, as it is the license that permits redistribution. > I don't see a problem with it. And, to be honest, anyone who > considers adding a comment to the top of a source file a > restriction is being seriously pedantic. I thought I had already mentioned that this isn't only about source file comments (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html)... To be honest, if you have problems with the original BSD license and GPL incompatibility, I suggest you bring it up on a GNU mailing list. Or any other list with legal experts. This discussion has little to do with GIMP. You're free to cc: me directly on such a discussion, but I don't think the GIMP mailing list is the right forum. Christian
