LGPL oder BSD?
Werner Koch
wk at gnupg.org
Mi Sep 17 08:36:07 UTC 2014
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:40, softmetz at fsfe.org said:
> Das klingt auch nach einer guten Idee. Machst du dann irgendetwas
> spezielles mit den File-Headern oder packst du nur den von z.B. BSD und
> GPL untereinander?
* This file is part of GnuPG.
*
* GnuPG is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* GnuPG is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*
!* ALTERNATIVELY, this file may be distributed under the terms of the
!* following license, in which case the provisions of this license are
!* required INSTEAD OF the GNU General Public License. If you wish to
!* allow use of your version of this file only under the terms of the
!* GNU General Public License, and not to allow others to use your
!* version of this file under the terms of the following license,
!* indicate your decision by deleting this paragraph and the license
!* below.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, and the entire permission notice in its entirety,
* including the disclaimer of warranties.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote
* products derived from this software without specific prior
* written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
* OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
* DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,
* INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
* (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
* SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
* HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
* STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
* ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED
* OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Man kann das aber auch anders gestalten - so dass beide Lizenzen
gleichberechtigt sind. Hatte ich auch mal irgendwo gesehen.
> Gibt es eigentlich sowas wie eine Dual-Licensing FAQ (mit mehreren Free
> Software Lizenzen) irgendwo?
Ich glaube unter softwarefreeedom.org hatte ich mal was gesehen.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste FSFE-de