question about BSD license vs. GPL

question about BSD license vs. GPL

[Kendrick M. Smith]

Hi all,

I'm one of the NFSv4 developers at the University of Michigan.
I'm about to post patches against 2.5.31 which import basic NFSv4
functionality, but have run into a last-minute snag regarding licensing.
We currently use a BSD-style license with the "advertising clause"
removed.  It is my understanding that this license is compatible with
the GPL, and therefore OK as far as Linux is concerned (even though
the standard BSD license is not).  Can anyone confirm this?  Changing
the license might be a time-consuming process involving squads of
University lawyers (ugh!)

For completeness, I've included the full text of the license here.
Ours reads:

 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
 * 3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its
 *    contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
 *    from this software without specific prior written permission.
 *
 *  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
 *  WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 *  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
 *  DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
 *  FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
 *  CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
 *  SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
 *  BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
 *  LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
 *  NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
 *  SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

By comparison, the standard BSD license reads:

 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
 * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
 *    must display the following acknowledgement:
 *      This product includes software developed by Kendrick Smith.
 * 4. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
 *    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
 *
 *  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
 *  WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 *  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
 *  DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
 *  FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
 *  CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
 *  SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
 *  BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
 *  LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
 *  NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
 *  SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Thanks!
 Kendrick Smith

Re: question about BSD license vs. GPL

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 19:33, Kendrick M. Smith wrote:
> the standard BSD license is not).  Can anyone confirm this?  Changing
> the license might be a time-consuming process involving squads of
> University lawyers (ugh!)

According to the FSF it is. There is a concern about patents but I've
been advised (by two people now) that if you are actively submitting the
code then the patent problem doesn't arrive since if you submit it to be
used then sue people you'll lose 8)

So it appears we can indeed (contrary to my original opinion) accept the
code, slap a GPL header on it and stuff it in the kernel. Or for that
matter people may want to contribute changes back under your original
license (if you want to keep an active non GPL tree it may be good to
add a comment and a request for people to do that)

Re: question about BSD license vs. GPL

[David Schwartz]

	The only possible conflict I can imagine is that your license says:

>* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>*    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>*    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>*    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

	Whereas, the GPL says:

  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

	And does not permit you to impose additional restrictions. It's not clear 
that having a "list of conditions" other than the GPL that cannot be removed 
is permitted. However, if you can construe your "list of conditions" as a 
copyright notice or disclaimer of warranty (which is sort of what it is), 
then I think there's no problem.

	DS