Re: [parisc-linux] licencing-question... ?

Re: [parisc-linux] licencing-question... ?

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 01:09:13PM -0400, Phil Schwan wrote:
> Are we/Am I  allowed to use code from the OSF-parisc-port ???
> The license from this port is:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> /*
>  * Copyright 1996 1995 by Open Software Foundation, Inc.
>  *              All Rights Reserved

>  * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>  * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
>  * provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
>  * that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
>  * supporting documentation.

This is the only bit to worry about.  I _think_ it's okay (ie this isn't
the infamous `advertising clause -- i think that's the one which talks about
being mentioned on the advertising for your product).  At any rate, the X11
licence which is generally reckoned GPL-subsumable contains:

  The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
  included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

The sticking point could be the copyright & permissions having to
appear in the supporting documentation.  What would be the supporting
documentation if, say, Red Hat sold Red Hat 8.0 for the PA-RISC? 
Would the user documentation have to include the copyright notice?

[I notice that it doesn't say `or substantial portions', so maybe just
 stealing large quantities of it and not including the permission notice
 in the documentation would be okay, as long as you don't use all of it.
 This will almost certainly annoy people though.]

>  * OSF DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE
>  * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
>  * FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

that's fine, the GPL does that too.

>  * IN NO EVENT SHALL OSF BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR
>  * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
>  * LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
>  * NEGLIGENCE, OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
>  * WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

ditto.

>  * Copyright (c) 1990,1991,1994 The University of Utah and
>  * the Computer Systems Laboratory (CSL).  All rights reserved.
>  *
>  * THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH AND CSL PROVIDE THIS SOFTWARE IN ITS "AS IS"
>  * CONDITION, AND DISCLAIM ANY LIABILITY OF ANY KIND FOR ANY DAMAGES
>  * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM ITS USE.

ditto

>  * CSL requests users of this software to return to csl-dist@cs.utah.edu any
>  * improvements that they make and grant CSL redistribution rights.

`requests' is not legally binding, so that's fine.

> Can we use the code, is it OK to accept this license, or shall we rewrite all ????

-- 
Matthew Wilcox <willy@bofh.ai>
"Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of
specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a
painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N Stephenson

Re: [parisc-linux] licencing-question... ?

[Mike Hibler]

We (Utah CSS/CSL) tried to make our copyrights more "GPL-friendly" in
later years (i.e., no advertising clause).  If there is still some problem,
by all means let me know before you go off and rewrite Utah code!  We can
probably re-release it with a different copyright (he says naively...)

Re: [parisc-linux] licencing-question... ?

[Philipp Rumpf]

> We (Utah CSS/CSL) tried to make our copyrights more "GPL-friendly" in
> later years (i.e., no advertising clause).  If there is still some problem,
> by all means let me know before you go off and rewrite Utah code!  We can
> probably re-release it with a different copyright (he says naively...)

If that indeed would be possible, a simple note stating that it is allowed to
distribute combinations of GPLed code and the code in question under the terms
of the GPL would suffice. What about the Open Software Foundation ?

Re: [parisc-linux] licencing-question... ?

[Alan Cox]

>   The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>   included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> 
> The sticking point could be the copyright & permissions having to

The copyright in code isnt a problem, in supporting docs can be an issue.

> documentation if, say, Red Hat sold Red Hat 8.0 for the PA-RISC? 
> Would the user documentation have to include the copyright notice?

What is documentation. Is the web site documentation etc etc.. 

The easiest thing is to get the Utah folks to add "Nothing in this 
license that is shown to be a restriction within the meaning of the GNU
public license shall hold when the code is distributed under the terms
of the GNU public license" or similar.