Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!cygnus.com!kithrup.com!mrs From: mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Message-ID: <DJrtsq.9Es@kithrup.com> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <DJ6y7H.MIE@kroete2.freinet.de> <4a6fgo$6lg@agate.berkeley.edu> <DJ8xE2.2K9@kroete2.freinet.de> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 07:22:01 GMT Lines: 14 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30608 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10639 comp.unix.advocacy:12287 gnu.misc.discuss:22029 In article <DJ8xE2.2K9@kroete2.freinet.de>, Erik Corry <erik@kroete2.freinet.de> wrote: >This means the product cannot be released under both the BSD and >the GPL licenses, since the BSD license imposes a further >restriction on the recipient. Taken at face value, this statement is not correct. An author can release his code under both the GPL and the BSD copyright. You will not be able to cite a law that disallows it. An author, for what ever reasons he wants, can choose to _not_ release his software under both, if he chooses. Just because he chooses not to, doesn't mean it cannot be done.