At 10:36 10/07/00 -0400, Robert D. Nelson wrote:
>>I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if
>>a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if
>>they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again.
>
>What I was asking was, if someone forks the code base, aren't they allowed
>to change their license? It would only make sense that they distinguish
>themselves as the developers of the new code fork, right?
>
>So, can't the code be forked in such a way that no code changes, and only
>the license?
I think the answer is no, not without permission from all parties to the
current license agreement, which would, arguably, include UoC + anyone who
had ever used or worked on the code.
This is not as bad as it sounds; it merely ensures that a BSD license can
not be dumped. The BSD license itself does not require source to be
distributed, and it does not place any requirements on how the source is
used, except in so far is it requires the copyright and license terms to be
displayed etc.
I asked also if I could create a new license that includes the following
text at the start:
"The floowing paragraphs are only relevant in Botswana for the year 1967"
since that seems (naievely) to be legal. I am told that this would also,
probably, be in breach of the license terms...at least in Australia (which
is based on UK law).
Sadly I am still waiting for complete answers to most of my questions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
