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