[PD-ot] BSD license

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

With the BSD license, I believe the accepted practice is leaving the  
copyright notice in place on the source files, and including the text  
of the LICENSE.txt file in the software package that you distribute.

.hc

On Nov 30, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Jamie Bullock wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I have question about PD's BSD-style license.
>
> Basically the LICENSE.txt file distributed with the PD sources talks
> about "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms", which  
> applies
> to "all files associated with the software unless explicitly  
> disclaimed
> in individual files". However, it isn't explicit about the use of  
> small
> 'portions' of code, as the GPL is. For example, if I were take a piece
> of functionality from PD, e.g. the phasor~ code, and use it in another
> program, what would my obligations be with regard to the BSD  
> license? It
> would seem inappropriate to reproduce the copyright notice in PD's
> license verbatim, since using the phrase "This software is
> copyrighted..." would imply that the copyright notice applied to the
> entirety of the software, rather than the small snippet taken from the
> PD sources. Perhaps a prominent phrase along the lines of "This  
> software
> contains portions of code Copyright Miller Puckette", would be more
> appropriate? ... but then that would seem not to comply with the  
> BSD...
>
> Is there some kind of accepted practice with this? Advice or  
> experience
> anyone?
>
> TIA,
>
> Jamie
>
> -- 
> www.postlude.co.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-ot mailing list
> PD-ot at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-ot



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

All information should be free.  - the hacker ethic