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?
