[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)
From: |
Thomas Schwinge |
Subject: |
Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation) |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:36:05 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
Hello!
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:04:30PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> First you list the files with the UU copyright, including advertising
> clause. Roland is going to ask Utah about those.
Ok.
> Then you list some with BSG copyright, including advertising clause. We
You mean UCB instead of BSG, I guess?
> already have permission from Berkeley to remove the clause from such
> files. Can someone take charge of doing so?
I'll do that.
> > pfinet/linux-src/include/linux/if_ppp.h
> > pfinet/linux-src/include/linux/if_pppvar.h
> > pfinet/linux-src/include/net/slhc_vj.h
> >
> > Those files state:
> >
> > #v+
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> > * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
> > * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
> > * advertising materials, and other materials related to such
> > * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
> > * by Carnegie Mellon University. The name of the
> > * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
> > * from this software without specific prior written permission.
> > #v-
>
> This does not contain any noxious clauses, and is already GPL-compatible as
> it stands.
Uhm, but it requires that ``any documentation, advertising materials
[...] acknowledge that the software was developed by Carnegie Mellon
University'' -- isn't that exactly what the advertising clause is about,
making it incompatible with the GPL?
> > #v+
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> > * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
> > * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
> > * advertising materials, and other materials related to such
> > * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
> > * by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the
> > * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
> > * from this software without specific prior written permission.
> > #v-
>
> Likewise, this is GPL compatible as it stands.
Dito.
Regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation), Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2007/06/16