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
