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). 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 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
