Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "bsd_licenses".
2015 Apr 27
2
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
...> > 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 ca...
2015 Apr 27
4
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal
> >> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
> >> process at runtime unless there is an alternate
2015 Apr 27
0
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
..., 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
> 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 co...
2015 Apr 27
0
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>>>
>> 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 only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
perl. And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
you....
2015 Apr 27
2
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
...> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >> 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 only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
> dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
> perl. And you have not mentioned anything abo...