OSDev.org

I've seen BSD licensed code in both GPL and closed source projects, including Windows. But is BSD really compatible with either?

The GPL doesn't allow "further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL", but the terms of BSD licenses do add more restrictions. It requires you to add the BSD license and copyright notice to both the source and binaries.

With most proprietary licenses, such as the Windows EULA, you aren't allowed to redisbritute the binaries at all, which conflicts directly with the BSD license. Does this mean that files containing the BSD licensed code are legally redistributable under the BSD terms or the proprietary license terms? Would the TCP/IP stack in older versions of Windows be legally redistributable under the BSD license?

The GPL requires you to add the license too.

Do you mean that there are redistributable libraries or similar things in Windows that you want to use?

If they are distributable libraries such as "unicows.dll" they are anyway intended to be included in applications you have made, or at least provide a link to them pointing to the Microsoft download page.

The GPL requires you to add the license too.

But it also doesn't allow more restrictions to be added which the BSD does. Is there an exception I haven't noticed in the license that allows BSD licenses, or am I missing something?

Do you mean that there are redistributable libraries or similar things in Windows that you want to use?

I'm not looking to use any of the libraries, I was using it as an example of where the terms of the BSD license directly conflict with the proprietary license and wondering if the terms of the proprietary license could legally override the BSD terms.

The BSD does not add more restrictions than the GPL. The GPL contains all the same, and millions more. QED.

Is requiring the BSD license to be included when source and binaries are redistributed not a restriction on rights? Or does adding no "further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL" mean that it is ok to require other licenses to be appended as long as they don't restrict anything further from that?

Did you read my second post?

Is requiring the BSD license to be included when source and binaries are redistributed not a restriction on rights?

^ YES, it is, but the GPL ALSO has this restriction!

^ YES, it is, but the GPL ALSO has this restriction!

I see what you are saying now, but the GPL doesn't require programs to specifically print:

* Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
* All rights reserved.

Okay. But it isn't adding a new restriction, it's the same restriction applied to new text. So.

I don't quite see your point... it is not possible to have two licenses on a single piece of code or a binary. The only time licenses are mixed is on seperate products that might just happen to come together. So they really do not effect each other. Also, GPL is identical to BSD and then some...

When you add BSD licenced code to a GPL project, you should contain that code and make sure that it's licence is left intact..

Thus you can't convert someones BSD code to GPL, Their licence remains in effect on that specific code.. Meaning someone can extract that segment of BSD code from the GPL project and use it in another BSD licenced project or even a commercial project.

With proprietary software that's source is not being distributed.. one must include the original licence in any accompanying documentation or text acknowledge you used the persons code..

Brynet-Inc wrote:Thus you can't convert someones BSD code to GPL

Thanks for clearing that up. I had assumed that when people meant that BSD licenses were GPL compatible meant that they could be re-released under the GPL.

Good lord no, I know of no license allowing that. Only the copyright holder can do that. If it's public domain, though, you can release it under the GPL, with the exception that peple are free to take it under public domain anyway, so there's no point using the gpl.

ehird wrote:Good lord no, I know of no license allowing that. Only the copyright holder can do that. If it's public domain, though, you can release it under the GPL, with the exception that peple are free to take it under public domain anyway, so there's no point using the gpl.

LGPL->GPL?

YOU CANNOT RELICENSE SOMEONE ELSE'S CODE.

EVER.

Even if it was changing "color" to "colour" in the license. You can't do that.