* Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> [000730 16:52] wrote:
> Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> > > > The requirements seem to be pretty commonsense things...
> > > > If you use some source code from Inprise, you've got to
> > > > keep track of where the source came from, label it with
> > > > their license, list any modifications you've made, always
> > > > provide the source with any executables, etc.
> > >
> > > But the BSD license doesn't require source for distributed binaries.
> > > Sounds like a GPL-style restriction.
> >
> > What is more important to my mind is if the license permits a developer to look
> > at the code and get inspired, or if the developer's mind will be "tainted" just
> > by looking.
> > I hope someone can tell; I always wake up later with my head on the keyboard
> > when I try to read license stuff...
>
> I don't think the licence terms can have any effect on this. If you take
> an idea from one code base and apply it to another code-bases with a
> different licence, then the applicable law is going to be fair use. And
> licence terms cannot affect fair use one way or the other.
With the obvious exception of patented algorithms. You do need to
be very careful, at least one major open source project violates
USL patents.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."