[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: no restriction license?



On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 11:05 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
...
> In some cases, it is possible for a binary to be generated from multiple
> source files with compatible, but differing licenses. Thus, the binary
> file would actually have simultaneous dual licensing (an AND, as opposed
> to an OR). For example, it is possible that a binary is generated from a
> source file licensed as BSD with advertising, and another source file
> licensed as QPL (which specifies that modifications must be shipped as
> patches). In this scenario, we'd wrap the list of licenses for that
> binary with parenthesis, example: 
> 
> Package spot-utils contains some files under the Python License, but one
> of the files is generated from a BSD with advertising source file and a
> QPL source file. 
> 
> License: Python and (BSD with advertising and QPL)
Will the license tag language become Turing complete soon?

> Think about it like this:
> 
> If License A has a restriction on what you may eat, and License B has a
> restriction on what you may drink, but they are otherwise compatible,
> the resulting work would have both restrictions, and we need to reflect
> that in the License tag.

But what about the situation when License A says you may eat only hot
chile peppers and License B says you may drink only hot tea or coffee?
Are they compatible or not? :)

-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]