Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
"as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.OK, great. That clears it up then.
Maybe this helps:
The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD code under the GPL.
Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause' license, or BSD-old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
The BSD license permits to mix a source file under BSD license with some lines under a different license if you document this. But this is not done in all cases I am aware of.
But you can't add the 'advertising requirement' of the 4-clause BSD to something with a GPL component because additional restrictions are prohibited.
Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL in order to make the whole be under GPL.
In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do with GPL and CDDL as well.
You can't do either if you are talking about the BSD-old license (which also isn't accepted as open source by the OSI). Fortunately, the owners of the original/official BSD were nice guys and removed the GPL incompatible clause, with the Revised BSD License being recognized as both open source and GPL-compatible. But that hasn't - and probably can't - happen with CDDL, so the only working option is dual licensing.
It seems that you are not interested in a sesrious discussion.
The 4-clause BSD license is not a valid OSS license and all original BSD code was converted by addict of the president of UC-Berleley.
So you claim that there is 4-clause BSD code in the Linux kernel? You are kidding :-(
Jörg