Hacker News Reader

Could you expand on this, please?

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.

Thank you.

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.

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?

Thank you for explaining. I see the issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com