Re: What is the licence of Debian-specific files (Was: Intent to package "vibrant" graphical library
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 11:18:54AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> If I got it as "public domain" (that is, "do whatever you want with this")
> then that is not relicensing. He said "do whatever you want with this" so
> I did.
"anything" includes the action of re-licensing. i.e. he is explicitly
allowed to re-license it under whatever terms he chooses.
> > This is why Bruce's relicensing of the map data works: you can get
> > it from him with his license (GPLed), or you can get it from where
> > he got it, with their license (pay us lotsa money, then do whatever
> > you like).
>
> Or you can get it from him, separate out the part that is their work,
> and distribute it under their terms.
nope. you can only do that with the original. bruce's version is GPL.
bruce may have a hard time proving that you violated the license on
his version, but the fact remains that you can't (legally) do what you
suggest.
similarly, if some company bought the data and included it in a product
under their own license, they would have every right to sue you if you
illegally extracted data from it.
> > The only reason you wouldn't be able to do this is if the terms on which
> > you obtained the software said you could only redistribute it under some
> > particular terms, which the GPL does, but X (and BSD) like licenses
> > don't.
>
> All licenses say under what conditions you may distribute the work: that is
> what they are for. The BSD places explicit conditions on redistribution:
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> must display the following acknowledgement:
> This product includes software developed by the University of
> California, Berkeley and its contributors.
> 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> without specific prior written permission.
none of these clauses are incompatible with the GPL. condition 3 is a bit
questionable but nothing in the GPL forbids it.
The BSD license allows you to distribute the software under any terms you
like as long as your terms include the above conditions.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: