Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Question about BSD style license

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


2011/5/15 Sergio Belkin <sebelk@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2011/5/13 Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the
>>> following license terms:
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
>>> display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed
>>> by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
>>>
>>>
>>> That would seem equivalent to
>>>
>>> >  * 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
>>> >  *    acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the
>>> >  *    "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
>>>
>>>
>>> so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
>>
>> I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause.
>> The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license
>> GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the
>> old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.
>>
>> GPLv3 explicitly permits incorporation of code covered by terms the
>> require "preservation of specified reasonable ... author attributions
>> in that material". I think that the way this acknowledgement
>> requirement is worded is consistent with that. There is some
>> uncertainty over whether that clause in GPLv3 was intended to codify
>> established practice under GPLv2 or set a new rule, and I know there
>> is at least one license where the FSF has said, post-GPLv3, that the
>> license was GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible based on some sort
>> of acknowledgement requirement. So this might be (at least in the
>> FSF's influential view) one of those strange cases where the license
>> is GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible, but maybe not. We'll have
>> to figure that issue out (unless we've done so already).
>
> Thanks for your analysis.
>
>>
>> But anyway, I think both "BSD" and "BSD with advertising" are
>> incorrect license tags here. Maybe "BSD with attribution" would work?
>
>
> I think as you, Richard. Advertising and attribution is not the sam
> ething. Please consider for example clause 3 and 66 of the OpenSSL
> license (http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html).

Sorry for the typo, I meant 6.


>
> So, we agree that both cyrus-sasl and UpTools has neither BSD nor "BSD
> with advertising". "BSD with attribution" does not exist by now. Could
> "BSD with attribution" be appended to the list mentioned in
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses ?
>
> I look forward your answer in order to make the proper corrections and
> set the License tag in the right way.
>
> Thanks in advance"
>
>>
>> - RF
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard E. Fontana
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Sergio Belkin  http://www.sergiobelkin.com
> Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com
> LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org
>



-- 
--
Sergio Belkin  http://www.sergiobelkin.com
Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com
LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal



[Fedora Users]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

Powered by Linux

Google
  Web www.spinics.net