[kepler-users] GPL vs. BSD (Was Re: saving workflow in eps format)

[Christopher Brooks]

Peter writes:

 > Just a thought: instead of having the BSD preamble in each file,
 > wouldn't it be easier to just provide a pointer to the license file?
 > That would make releasing under several licenses easier.

Files tend to get copied around and the license file does not
get copied with the file.

I've also seen a student remove the GPL license line under the
misapprehension that this would make the file non-GPL'd!
Having more than one line helps make it more obvious that
the file has a license.

It is unfortunate that the GPL is too long to include in each
file, though I understand why it is that way.

My understanding is that our 2 clause BSD license is not
incompatible with GPL:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
says:
--start--
Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL?

     Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. Section 6 of GPLv2 states:

         You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

     GPLv3 says something similar in section 10. The advertising clause provides just such a further restriction, and thus is GPL-incompatible.

     The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which eliminates the problem.
--end--

BTW - See http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
for a message from rms about an example of why BSD is better
than nothing.


_Christopher

-- 
Christopher Brooks, PMP                       University of California
CHESS Executive Director                      US Mail: 337 Cory Hall
Programmer/Analyst CHESS/Ptolemy/Trust        Berkeley, CA 94720-1774
ph: 510.643.9841 fax:510.642.2718	      (Office: 545Q Cory)
home: (F-Tu) 707.665.0131 cell: 707.332.0670