5 ms·

Could you expand on this, please?

• torstenvl 4y ago
  No, I can't, and that's the problem. "Source" and "binary" are key terms to the BSD license, but are wholly undefined. Under the BSD license, what requirements exist for redistributions that are neither source nor binary in the regular meaning of those terms? Presumably there ought to be one, but... the license doesn't say.
  • nishs 4y ago
    Thank you.
  • nishs 4y ago
    What other modes of distribution are there that are neither source nor binary? I can't think of any. But I see the overall issue.
    • torstenvl 4y ago
      What about redistribution of documentation? What about redistribution of the product of macros/meta programming? Redistribution of the assembler output? Thought experiment: I publish a library in which the .c file is released as public domain but the .h file (which has no function definitions, `static` or otherwise, and had no function-like macros) is released as BSD-2. The header file will essentially disappear during compilation. You cannot make a .o out of such a header; there is no binary format of it. Is the resulting binary covered by the BSD license?
      • nishs 4y ago
        Thank you for explaining. I see the issues.