On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Henry B. Hotz wrote:

> At 8:29 PM -0600 2/15/03, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> >On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> >  > Granted it's more up-to-date, but I thought there was license problem
> >>  with the sourceforge stuff.  The original was released with a
> >>  copyright that didn't allow the GPL modification to the copyright or
> >>  something?

> Realistically I doubt anyone cares.  I certainly wouldn't want to
> guess how a court would resolve a disagreement if one were to appear.

To elaborate, there actually are BSD-alike licenses that specifically
prohibit the code from being "GPL"'d. By imposing terms on derivative
works, it's not really a BSD license anymore. It's sort of like, "To
beat me, you must become me, Luke". It's also just as fuzzy and
unenforceable as the GPL itself, as we've yet to see any such
restriction enforced by a court. None of this applies to netatalk.

Frederick