Re: [kln2-devel] preferences

[Marek W. <Mar...@fu...>]

Hi e-body,

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Carlo wrote:
> preferences-0.2 seems to run and to be easy to use, but it comes with a
> custom license

I have received an answer from David Johnson (see below). His
license appears not to be his "custom license" - it is a
standard "modified BSD license". :) And is perfectly compatible
with GPL.

I don't like the last David's suggestion though - if he wanted
it to be non-copylefted it should stay like this (the modified
files should be left with the modified BSD license, not GPL-ed).
Carlo, my suggestion is:
1) if there are any big additions to be made which are kind of
 stand-alone - write them to a separate file;
2) but don't hesitate to modify the David's files as much as
 you have to;
3) leave his license and copyright in .h plus add a line like:
 // Modified by Carlo Vanini for KLearnNotes2.
 (cf. my remarks in cvoicecontrolkln2.c)

Happy coding! :) If I can be of any help just let me know.
~Marek

PS. But we cannot learn by heart all the GPL compatible
licenses... :( I'm not sure how to avoid a similar confusion in
the future.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:46:20 -0700
From: David Johnson <david AT usermode...>
To: Marek Wieckowski <Marek.Wieckowski AT fuw...>
Subject: Re: preferences-2.0 license

On Monday 30 August 2004 10:57 am, you wrote:

> We would like to use your preferences-2.0 for storing user
> preferences. It seems really promising especially compared to
> what we used so far. I'm writing this e-mail to ask you to allow
> us to use this code under terms of GNU General Public License,
> rather than your "list of conditions".

My Preferences class is licensed under the "three clause" BSD License.
This license is fully compatible with the GNU GPL. You are already free
to use the code in GPL licensed products, and it will not affect your
own license!

Richard Stallman has declared the license I use to be fully compatible
with the GPL. Please see
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD>. This means
you may distribute my Preferences class or derivatives you make of it
under the terms and licensing of the GPL.

> Your license says: "Redistribution and use in source [...] with
> [...] modification, are permitted ...". Yes, to make your code
> useful for us it will have to be modified. But if we modify the
> file it is not clear to what the original license applies to!

The license is clear. My terms apply to the modified source code! You
cannot remove my copyright or license statements. However, you are
permitted to add to them with the terms of the GPL. It does not matter
to me if you keep do or do not keep track of specific modifications in
the source files. Merely keeping the copryight and license statements
at the top is sufficient. If you distribute the code under the terms of
the GPL, then you are also distributing it under my terms, so there is
no problem.

What some GPL projects have done with BSD licensed code is to include
the standard GPL notice, followed by a statement that the original code
was copyrighted by the author under the listed BSD terms.

Does this make sense? If it does not, please let me know.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org