Is BSD licence compatible to export with emacs modules?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Is BSD licence compatible to export with emacs modules?

Arthur Miller-2
Just a short question: if I wrap a bsd-licensed code into n emacs module,
is it compatible
with GPL license? Is it OK to export with

int plugin_is_GPL_compatible;

Does that symbol aim at my own written module code, or does it even include

used 3rd party code (which in this case is licenced under the BSD licence)?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is BSD licence compatible to export with emacs modules?

Tomas Zerolo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:26:51PM +0200, Arthur Miller wrote:
> Just a short question: if I wrap a bsd-licensed code into n emacs module,
> is it compatible
> with GPL license? Is it OK to export with
>
> int plugin_is_GPL_compatible;
>
> Does that symbol aim at my own written module code, or does it even include
>
> used 3rd party code (which in this case is licenced under the BSD licence)?

Yes. BSD is GPL compatible [1]. ( assume it's the currently common "modified"
or "three-clause" license [2] and not the original, four-clause license [4],
which is pretty uncommon these days. The four-clause license has this non-
advertising clause.

Cheers

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list#GPLCompatibleLicenses
[2] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD_3Clause
[3] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD_4Clause

- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAll6WQ0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYQNgCfdZLuqzrw7xvx7Tx5R3AkJmIF
xzAAnApo+y4iBrBlZn1KHGcM4deuAiYX
=WROV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is BSD licence compatible to export with emacs modules?

Emanuel Berg-4
> Yes. BSD is GPL compatible [1]. ( assume it's
> the currently common "modified" or
> "three-clause" license [2] and not the
> original, four-clause license [4], which is
> pretty uncommon these days. The four-clause
> license has this non- advertising clause.

What's the advantage "these days" using BSD
instead of Debian (or derivative) like everyone
else? Because I heard there is even
a BSD Debian!

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is BSD licence compatible to export with emacs modules?

Tomas Zerolo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:37:45PM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> > Yes. BSD is GPL compatible [1]. ( assume it's
> > the currently common "modified" or
> > "three-clause" license [2] and not the
> > original, four-clause license [4], which is
> > pretty uncommon these days. The four-clause
> > license has this non- advertising clause.
>
> What's the advantage "these days" using BSD
> instead of Debian (or derivative) like everyone
> else? Because I heard there is even
> a BSD Debian!

I think there's a misunderstanding. The OP was talking
about a piece of software under the BSD license, not about
BSD "the operating system". FWIW, Debian (or derivative)
include many important components which are BSD licensed.

As to your question... no systemd?

(runs for cover ;-P

best
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAll69oIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZfrgCbBW4kE6i5d+v2Nsf6focyiBqh
3RAAn1hHrcY3BnSdyxsbwtB9JBcn89ZN
=mWeO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Loading...