On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:49:50 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Suraj N. Kurapati > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes [...] > >So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become > >licensed under both licenses? That is, did the originally-MIT > >portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD license? > > > By the way, if it is the *true* BSD licence (ie the code is copyright > Berkeley University :-) then the BSD and the MIT stuff are equivalent. > > Berkeley has, to the best of my knowledge, deleted clause 3 from all > the software to which they own the copyright. (Precisely because it > was incompatible with the GPL, I believe...)
Wait, wait. I think you are messing things up a little bit... What Suraj is referring to when he says "BSD" is the 3-clause BSD license[1] (he gave the OSI URL[2] in his original message). Hence he's already referring to a BSD license without the OAC (Obnoxious Advertising Clause). The 3-clause BSD license is *not* exactly equivalent to the so-called MIT license (by which, I think, Suraj is referring to the Expat license[3]). For instance, the third clause of the 3-clause BSD license (even though some consider it as a legal no-op...) has no corresponding restriction in the Expat license. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html [2] http://opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/bsd-license.php [3] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpAT32tlJsgS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
