On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 04:50:14PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Chad Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:38:04AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote: > >> > >> Thus in general I think one is generally better off talking with > >> upstream projects and trying to get them on board. > > > > Take the most restrictive reasonable interpretation of both if you want > > to play it safe. After all, a change in the upstream project's > > maintainership could get you in a lot of trouble if you rely entirely on > > the legally non-binding word of a project maintainer. > > I think one could easily read the GPL v3 and the 2-clause BSD licenses > (and hence every other similar permissive license) as requiring > incompatible things. If we want to take the most restrictive > reasonable interpretation of both, these licenses are incompatible, > which is somebody nobody really believes.
[snip a bunch of relevant stuff] How does anything you said change anything I said or make it untrue? -- Chad Perrin _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
