Re: Licensing question about the BSD

[Steve]

> The BSD license does not cover the modifications, it merely allows for
> the modifications.

	Can you please elaborate further?  This statement seems to directly 
contradict your previous one, acknowledging that works deriving from 
BSD-licensed code must include the ancestral owner(s)'s copyright 
notice(s) and licensing conditions/disclaimer.

	For purposes of what I'm asking about, placement of these 
acknowledgments in source code vs. advertisements isn't really relevant. 
   The license states that "redistributions... with modification" (ie. 
derived works) have to embed the BSD license terms SOMEWHERE in their 
materials.  Doesn't this mean that derived works are therefore covered 
by the BSD license (in addition to any other proprietary or open 
licensing terms the derived work author himself applies)?


	Consider an example.  Some author created an application named "A", and 
licenses it with the BSD.  Another author creates application "B", 
containing some code from "A".  The author of "B" licenses his work 
under the GPL, but includes a copyright notice and the BSD terms in his 
source code to satisfy the terms of "A".  Finally, I come along and 
write application "C", which incorporates code from "B".

	In this example, I would of course be required to license my "C" 
application under the GPL.  Would I ALSO need to embed in my source and 
docs a copyright notice for the author of "A", with the BSD terms and 
disclaimer?  Even though the "B" application I derived from was GPL'ed, 
do I also "inherit" that requirment placed on "B" by "A"?


	I guess what has me confused is that I've seen tons of projects that 
incorporate BSD-licensed code, yet do not include long lists of 
copyright notices in their source and docs.  Does this imply that many 
people deriving from BSD-licensed works are simply breaking the license 
agreement, or is there something else I'm missing here?