License question

License question

[Giuliano Pochini]

Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this
BSD-style license ?


Copyright (c) 2002 Echo Digital Audio
All rights reserved.
www.echoaudio.com

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal with the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:

- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.

- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

- Neither the name of Echo Digital Audio, nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this Software without specific prior written permission.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE.


--
Giuliano.

Re: License question

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:57:02 +0100, Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>  said:
> 
> Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this
> BSD-style license ?

Why a "BSD-style" rather than a straight BSD license?  The question of
BSD and GPL compatability is already a done deal.  If you say "BSD-style",
we then need to go through clause-by-clause and figure out how it's different
from the BSD license and what implications it has.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

There's enough of the damned things already.  Please don't invent another one.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: License question

[Sergey Vlasov]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:25:24 -0500, Valdis.Kletniek wrote:

> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
> 
> There's enough of the damned things already.  Please don't invent another one.

In fact, exactly the same text is there:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php

Re: License question

[Misshielle Wong]

Hello

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:57:02 +0100, Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it> 
wrote:

>
> Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this
> BSD-style license ?
>

Let me see

>
> Copyright (c) 2002 Echo Digital Audio
> All rights reserved.
> www.echoaudio.com
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> "Software"), to deal with the Software without restriction, including
> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
> permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
> the following conditions:
>
> - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
>
> - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> - Neither the name of Echo Digital Audio, nor the names of its
> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
> this Software without specific prior written permission.
>

Mmmm... I think yes. Code in kernel must be licensed GPL. Above allow 
sublicense so ok

> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR
> ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
> TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
> SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE.
>
>
> --
> Giuliano.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" 
> in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RE: License question

[David Schwartz]

> > Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this
> > BSD-style license ?

> Let me see

	Yes, in general. No, not this license.
 
> > - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.

	Sorry, that's an "additional restriction" not permitted under the GPL.

> > - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the
> > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

	I believe this is an additional restriction as well.

> Mmmm... I think yes. Code in kernel must be licensed GPL. Above allow 
> sublicense so ok

	They allow sublicensing, but the sublicense can't remove the additional restriction. See section 6 of the GPL.

	To make this license GPL compatible, the two restrictions above would have to be modified to be identical to, or a proper subset of, section 2 clauses b and c of the GPL.

	DS

Re: License question

[Misshielle Wong]

Hello

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:06:32 -0800, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> 
wrote:

>
>
>> > Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this
>> > BSD-style license ?
>
>> Let me see
>
> 	Yes, in general. No, not this license.
>

Hahaha

>> > - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
>
> 	Sorry, that's an "additional restriction" not permitted under the GPL.
>

This is no restriction. This here just asks for copyright notice and 
conditions to NOT be removed, which is perfectly fine. Section 6 never 
overrides this. Section 6 asks not to restrict rights, and above clause 
does not restrict rights.

>> > - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the
>> > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> 	I believe this is an additional restriction as well.

I find perfectly fine. Is just a request to include the copyright notice 
and conditions along with the binary. Section 2, clause c does not 
override. Does not infringe Section 6 either. What is the problem?

>
>> Mmmm... I think yes. Code in kernel must be licensed GPL. Above allow
>> sublicense so ok
>
> 	They allow sublicensing, but the sublicense can't remove the additional 
> restriction. See section 6 of the GPL.
>
> 	To make this license GPL compatible, the two restrictions above would 
> have to be modified to be identical to, or a proper subset of, section 2 
> clauses b and c of the GPL.
>

Hahaha, those are no restrictions, so no problem. Summarizing this 
license, it ends up like this: "Copyright bla bla bla. Keep 'em goddamn 
copyrights and disclaimer or else you have no rights to copy, modify, 
sublicense, redistribute, sublicense bla bla bla. Software provided 'as 
is'. Clear?"

GPL is ok with that.


> 	DS
>
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: License question

[Jes Sorensen]

>>>>> "Misshielle" == Misshielle Wong <mwl@bajoo.net> writes:

Misshielle> Hello On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:06:32 -0800, David Schwartz
Misshielle> <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

>>> > - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>>> copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following
>>> disclaimers in the > documentation and/or other materials provided
>>> with the distribution.
>>  I believe this is an additional restriction as well.

Misshielle> I find perfectly fine. Is just a request to include the
Misshielle> copyright notice and conditions along with the
Misshielle> binary. Section 2, clause c does not override. Does not
Misshielle> infringe Section 6 either. What is the problem?

You may find this one fine, but that doesn't make it fly, sorry.
Requiring people to redistribute the license notice in all
documentation included with the binaries is an additional restriction
which is not found in the GPL. So a very clear no cannot do.

This is also known as the BSD 'advertisement' clause which was the
main reason we could never use BSD code in the old days. Berkeley has
since updated their license and removed this clause from it, however
the license still poses a problem since it doesn't include an explicit
patent license grant, but thats a completely different issue.

Cheers,
Jes

Re: License question

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:14:39AM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> This is also known as the BSD 'advertisement' clause which was the
> main reason we could never use BSD code in the old days. Berkeley has
> since updated their license and removed this clause from it, however
> the license still poses a problem since it doesn't include an explicit
> patent license grant, but thats a completely different issue.

No, the advertising clause was something different: "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."

The clause you refer to, "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", still remains in the modified BSD license which everyone
(except some original thinkers on this thread) agrees to be
GPL-compatible.

--Bruce Fields

Re: License question

[Misshielle Wong]

Hi

>
> This is also known as the BSD 'advertisement' clause which was the
> main reason we could never use BSD code in the old days. Berkeley has
> since updated their license and removed this clause from it, however
> the license still poses a problem since it doesn't include an explicit
> patent license grant, but thats a completely different issue.
>

No, the advertising clause is not present in the license in question. 
Following is the original BSD license, which includes the advertising 
clause. It is clause #3.
====
Copyright (c) 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All rights 
reserved.

This software was developed by the Computer Systems Engineering group at 
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory under DARPA contract BG 91-66 and contributed 
to Berkeley.

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, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

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 the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. 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 BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``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.
====

> Cheers,
> Jes
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RE: License question

[Giuliano Pochini]

On 17-Jan-2004 David Schwartz wrote:
>> > - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
>
>       Sorry, that's an "additional restriction" not permitted under the GPL.

These are in fact the points I wished your opinion about...
Actually these are requirements (like others said), not
use restrictions. btw, IANAL and IP rights are a minefield.
Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, but it
also contains the binary firmwares which I can't rewrite. That's
why I asked you about the license.
It's likely Echoaudio will change the license in the next release
to a dual GPL/custom license, so this will be no more an issue.

Thanks for you answers.

--
Giuliano.

RE: License question

[David Schwartz]

> On 17-Jan-2004 David Schwartz wrote:
> >> > - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.

> > Sorry, that's an "additional restriction" not permitted
> > under the GPL.

> These are in fact the points I wished your opinion about...
> Actually these are requirements (like others said), not
> use restrictions.

	There is no difference. Every requirement can be rephrased as an equivalent
restriction. The requirement that you maintain the terms is the same as a
restriction against removing them.

> btw, IANAL and IP rights are a minefield.

	Definitely.

> Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, but it
> also contains the binary firmwares which I can't rewrite. That's
> why I asked you about the license.

	Then you have another problem. You can't place something under the GPL if
you don't have the source code to it. How can you offer the source code to
others if you don't have it? (Though my opinion seems to differ from the
mainstream on this point. It is my opinion that you must possess the source
code to any object code you wish to GPL.)

> It's likely Echoaudio will change the license in the next release
> to a dual GPL/custom license, so this will be no more an issue.

	Glad to hear that.

> Thanks for you answers.

	Of course, you shouldn't rely upon them.

	DS

RE: License question

[Giuliano Pochini]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, but it
> > also contains the binary firmwares which I can't rewrite. That's
> > why I asked you about the license.
>
> 	Then you have another problem. You can't place something under the GPL if
> you don't have the source code to it.

This issue was raised on the list a few months ago. Someone's opinion was
that the firmware is not executed by the same processor that runs Linux,
thus it's data, not code. Uploading a firmware is like printing an image
on the screen. Anyway I can upload the firmware from userspace. On most
(but not all) cards I only need the firmware at startup, so I also save
memory. Some cards also have an ASIC which must be loaded. That data is
not code because it's not executed.


--
Giuliano.

RE: License question

[David Schwartz]

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, David Schwartz wrote:

> > > Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, but it
> > > also contains the binary firmwares which I can't rewrite. That's
> > > why I asked you about the license.

> > 	Then you have another problem. You can't place something
> > under the GPL if
> > you don't have the source code to it.

> This issue was raised on the list a few months ago. Someone's opinion was
> that the firmware is not executed by the same processor that runs Linux,
> thus it's data, not code.

	The GPL makes no distinctions about what processor runs things, nor does it
make distinctions between data and code.

> Uploading a firmware is like printing an image
> on the screen.

	So what difference is that supposed to make? Quoting the GPL:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.

	Notice it doesn't say that source code only exists for executables. It
simply clarifies what it means by "source code" by explaining what it means
with respect to executables. If you release a package under the GPL that
includes, for example, a JPG image, you would have to give the "preferred
from of [that] work for making modification to it" to any user who requested
it (or otherwise comply with the GPL requirements).

> Anyway I can upload the firmware from userspace. On most
> (but not all) cards I only need the firmware at startup, so I also save
> memory. Some cards also have an ASIC which must be loaded. That data is
> not code because it's not executed.

	Why does it matter whether it's data or code? The GPL doesn't care whether
a work is data or code, it just requires that you provide to a suitably
qualified requester the "preferred form of the work for making modifications
to it". Even data has a "preferred form". Raw versus processed is analogous
to source versus object.

	I think the firmware loader can be a license boundary. Just don't put any
GPL notices in the files that contain the firmware as data. While this isn't
'mere aggregation', the integration is across an API that should be
acceptable as a license boundary.

	DS

Re: License question

[Jes Sorensen]

>>>>> "Giuliano" == Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it> writes:

Giuliano> These are in fact the points I wished your opinion about...
Giuliano> Actually these are requirements (like others said), not use
Giuliano> restrictions. btw, IANAL and IP rights are a minefield.
Giuliano> Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C,
Giuliano> but it also contains the binary firmwares which I can't
Giuliano> rewrite. That's why I asked you about the license.  It's
Giuliano> likely Echoaudio will change the license in the next release
Giuliano> to a dual GPL/custom license, so this will be no more an
Giuliano> issue.

That sounds great, getting rid of the C++ components is a major step
;-)

Even if the firmware license doesn't change, you still have the option
to use the hotplug firmware loader in 2.6.

Cheers,
Jes

Re: License question

[Andreas Jellinghaus]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:59:54 +0000, Giuliano Pochini wrote:

> Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this
> BSD-style license ?

ah, header and buttom are the same as the XFree license, the restrictions
are from the BSD license. (Some very small differences like "deal with" /
"deal in" and "disclaimers" vs. "disclaimer".) Those two licenses are well
known to be free, open source and GPL compatible.

So the license is perfectly fine, you can use this code in the linux
kernel. 

I used "wdiff" to compare to this license text to the BSD and XFree
license. That is a very nice tool suited for this task. 
In case you have any influence on licensing: It is a lot better to
use some well known and accepted license, than writing your own,
even if like in this case, the license is completely build from two
existing licenses which makes the analysis very easy. 

Regards, Andreas

Re: License question

[Misshielle Wong]

Hi

>
> 	It doesn't "ask" for anything. It states a license requirement. And 
> yes, it does restrict rights, it removes your right to remove that 
> notice. Any license clause that prohibits you from making particular 
> modifications to the source code is a restriction. The only issue is 
> whether it's a "further restriction" for purposes of clause 6 of the 
> GPL. As I read the GPL, a restriction is a "further restriction" if it 
> is imposed in addition to those stated in the GPL.
>

Blah blah blah. You can't remove copyright notices in GPL'ed software 
either, so it is no additional restriction.

>> Summarizing this
>> license, it ends up like this: "Copyright bla bla bla. Keep 'em goddamn
>> copyrights and disclaimer or else you have no rights to copy, modify,
>> sublicense, redistribute, sublicense bla bla bla. Software provided 'as
>> is'. Clear?"
>
> 	Yep, that's what it says.
>
>> GPL is ok with that.
>
> 	No, GPL is "you may modify however you please". It imposes only a 
> specific set of restrictions and specifically prohibits the imposition 
> of additional restrictions. These are *exactly* the type of additional 
> restrictions the GPL was carefully worded to prohibit!
>

Blah blah blah. Read the GPL section 1 and 2.

=====
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.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you 
may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, 
thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such 
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that 
you also meet all of these conditions:
...
=====

See? Must keep the appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty 
in each copy.



> 	DS
>
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: License question

[Misshielle Wong]

Hello

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:47:22 -0800, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> 
wrote:

>
>> Hi
>
> 	Hello.
>
>> > 	It doesn't "ask" for anything. It states a license requirement. And
>> > yes, it does restrict rights, it removes your right to remove that
>> > notice. Any license clause that prohibits you from making particular
>> > modifications to the source code is a restriction. The only issue is
>> > whether it's a "further restriction" for purposes of clause 6 of the
>> > GPL. As I read the GPL, a restriction is a "further restriction" if it
>> > is imposed in addition to those stated in the GPL.
>
>> Blah blah blah. You can't remove copyright notices in GPL'ed software
>> either, so it is no additional restriction.
>
> 	I'm not sure what section of the GPL you're referring to. 2c does not 
> impose such a restriction.
>
>> >> Summarizing this
>> >> license, it ends up like this: "Copyright bla bla bla. Keep 'em 
>> goddamn
>> >> copyrights and disclaimer or else you have no rights to copy, modify,
>> >> sublicense, redistribute, sublicense bla bla bla. Software provided 
>> 'as
>> >> is'. Clear?"
>> >
>> > 	Yep, that's what it says.
>> >
>> >> GPL is ok with that.
>> >
>> > 	No, GPL is "you may modify however you please". It imposes only a
>> > specific set of restrictions and specifically prohibits the imposition
>> > of additional restrictions. These are *exactly* the type of additional
>> > restrictions the GPL was carefully worded to prohibit!
>> >
>>
>> Blah blah blah. Read the GPL section 1 and 2.
>>
>> =====
>> 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.
>
> 	This does not prohibit you from removing anything. Please show me the 
> section that says you can't remove a copyright notice. And notice that 
> these restrictions are only on copying and distributing. The license we 
> are talking about imposes such restrictions upon use.
>

No, you misunderstand. It says you have to include the appropriate 
copyright notice in order to distribute it. "Appropriate copyright notice" 
means "Copyright from ALL copyright holders", because that's the 
"appropriate" thing to do. Failure to include all copyright notices is 
plagiarism and you can be sued for that.


>> You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and 
>> you
>> may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
>>
>> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
>> portion of it,
>> thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
>> modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
>> you also meet all of these conditions:
>> ...
>> =====
>
>> See? Must keep the appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of
>> warranty
>> in each copy.
>
> 	It doesn't say you have to keep anything. Please, show me the section 
> that says so. It only says you must attach a copyright somewhere, not 
> that you can't remove existing copyright notices. It also only requires 
> you to keep intact notices that refer to "this license", that is, the 
> GPL.
>

Blah blah blah. It clearly states that you have to include the appropriate 
copyright notices. As I stated before, "appropriate" means "ALL of them" 
in this case.


> 	I'm sorry, the license is not GPL compatible. The GPL was carefully 
> constructed to make it impossible for people to put things in the source 
> code that others could not remove (other than the GPL itself).
>

Blah blah blah. Go do your homework and stop arguing about something you 
don't understand.

Start by visiting the following URL: 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

The license in question is an hybrid between "The modified BSD license" 
and "The X11 license". No additions were made, just inserted something  
 from one license into the other. All insertions are therefore GPL 
compatible.


=====
The modified BSD license. http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
(Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the 
"General" section.)

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising 
clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, 
compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the 
modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to 
recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur 
and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, 
you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised 
BSD license are more or less equivalent.
=====


=====
The X11 license. http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, 
compatible with the GNU GPL. XFree86 uses the same license. This is 
sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is misleading since MIT 
has used many licenses for software.
=====

> 	DS
>
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: License question

[Misshielle Wong]

Hi. Go do your homework. Check the URLs I gave you. The list of 
GPL-compatible licenses include licenses with the exact same 
"restrictions", namely the Modified BSD license. The URL is from GNU 
official page, so it is official that such licenses are accepted.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

I quote the text from there. It is a close match to the license in 
question, and has the same "restrictions" you are disputing.


Text from www.gnu.org:
=====
The modified BSD license. http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
(Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the 
"General" section.)

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising 
clause. It is a simple,
permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the 
modified BSD license is a
reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD 
license'', because confusion
could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To 
avoid this risk, you can
suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD 
license are more or less
equivalent.
=====

Text from www.xfree.org:
=====
2.2.1. General

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. 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 BY THE AUTHOR ``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 AUTHOR 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.
=====

There. Now stop arguing.


On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:29:00 -0800, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> 
wrote:

>
> 	It's really this simple. The GPL allows you to require a copyright 
> notice, disclaimer of liability, and the GPL itself be included in a 
> copy. However, this license also requires you to include additional 
> statements about the requirement to include a copyright notice. Nothing 
> in the GPL permits you to require other notices or license requirements 
> to be in the distribution. So this is an additional restriction.
>
> 	Please, tell me where the GPL says you are permitted to mandate the 
> inclusion of other license restriction language in the distribution. A 
> statement that you must include a copyright is not itself a copyright 
> notice nor is it a disclaimer of liability.
>
> 	The license we are discussing requires you to include the following 
> notice:
>
>> >> > - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> >> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
>
> 	This notice is not itself a copyright notice, it's a license term. It's 
> also not a disclaimer of liability. It's also not the GPL. These are the 
> only three things the GPL permits you to mandate.
>
> 	If you can show me a clause in the GPL that permits you to mandate 
> license requirements other than the text of the GPL itself, please do 
> so. Otherwise, this is an additional restriction.
>
> 	DS
>
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RE: License question

[David Schwartz]

> Hi. Go do your homework. Check the URLs I gave you. The list of 
> GPL-compatible licenses include licenses with the exact same 
> "restrictions", namely the Modified BSD license. The URL is from GNU 
> official page, so it is official that such licenses are accepted.

	It is official that the FSF accepts them. This does not mean that a court will. If I place my program under the GPL, I am the one who would sue you. A court would not particularly care what the FSF thinks the GPL means, they would care what the GPL actually says and what I mean when I placed my program under it.

	The plain language of the GPL does not permit a requirement that you maintain a list of licensing terms other than the GPL. This license requires you to do just that.
 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> 
> I quote the text from there. It is a close match to the license in 
> question, and has the same "restrictions" you are disputing.
> 
> 
> Text from www.gnu.org:
> =====
> The modified BSD license. http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
> (Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the 
> "General" section.)
> 
> This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising 
> clause. It is a simple,
> permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with 
> the GNU GPL.

	I agree with everything but the last part. The GPL does not permit you to require anyone to maintain any licensing language other than the GPL itself but his license does. That makes them incompatible.
 

> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, 
> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

	The problem is the "this list of conditions". Please show me where the GPL permits you to have a list of restrictions (other than the GPL itself) that people are prohibited from removing when they distribute the work.

> 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.

	Again, please show me the GPL section that permits this restriction. I see no GPL section that permits you to prevent people from removing a "list of conditions" when they distribute a work.

> There. Now stop arguing.

	I'm right. The FSF, and you, are wrong. If you are correct, quote the GPL section that permits you to prohibit people from removing a list of conditions for copying/distributing.

	DS

Re: License question

[David Meybohm]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:05:30AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, 
> > this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 
> 	The problem is the "this list of conditions". Please show me where the GPL permits you to have a list of restrictions (other than the GPL itself) that people are prohibited from removing when they distribute the work.

(IANAL && IMHO)

You're right that no additional restrictions are allowed, and at first
glance I agreed with you that they are incompatible.  Now I will argue
the opposite, that code disbtributed under the BSD license without the
advertising clause does not impose any additional restrictions when also
distributed under the GPL.

My argument hinges on the definition of "appropriate copyright notice"
from the GPL:

	  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.

I would define an "appropriate copyright notice" to be what is included
at the tops of files for many GPL'd programs ("(C) Copyright 2004 Me
This program is free software.  You may distribute it under the GPL.").
The notice required by the #1 clause in the BSD no-advert license seems
to be a copyright symbol with attribution and then a summary of the
rights available for the code in question.

Your interpretation on combining the two licenses hinges on being able
to modify the copyright terms (which may grant additional rights -- in
the no-advert case, it does so through omission), distribute under the
GPL, and still remain "appropriate".  If it is invalid to do so under
the GPL, then it is not an additional restriction that when combining
the two you must keep the some specific conditions due to the no-advert
BSD license.  The question is, does the GPL definition of an appropriate
notice _become_ what the no-advert license conditions are (and hence
disallowing their removal), because that's the license the code is
distributed under (assuming this was originally distributed under the
BSD license, code licensed from the start as GPL/BSD left as an
exercise), and so those are the terms that should be displayed in an
appropriate copyright notice?

I think it would, as it would be inappropriate to modify the terms under
which the code may be manipulated, which is located directly after the
copyright notice, and still claim legitimacy (also, it is probably not
kosher to put false copyright notices there).  So this becomes
compatible with the GPL, because the notice itself and the terms under
which the code may be used in their entirety is the only thing that
constitutes an "appropriate" copyright notice.  That the terms in the
notice are unmodifable is in agreement with both licenses, but only in
their combination: because if you don't own the copyright you can't
modify those terms in a significant way and produce a copyright notice
that is still appropriate enough to satisfy the GPL.

So while a GPL program may allow you to change the text of the
conditions at the top of each GPL'd file, a GPL/BSD dual-licensed
program would not when the BSD conditions blanket the code in question,
because the GPL's definition of "appropriate" changes within the scope
of the dual-license, to whatever additional conditions apply to the code
distributed to produce an appropriate notice.

This doesn't mean you can't add names to the copyright list, which
happens under both licenses.  It probably does mean a no-advert BSD
license program would not be able to remove any notices from files that
still contained any code copyright that person.  The GPL is probably the
same, but is more flexible and ambiguous, so you may include someone's
name somewhere else and say that is "appropriate" enough of a notice.

> > 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.
> 
> 	Again, please show me the GPL section that permits this restriction. I see no GPL section that permits you to prevent people from removing a "list of conditions" when they distribute a work.

Doesn't this seem equivalent to the #1 requirement in the GPL?  The GPL
mostly treats "the program" uniformly regardless if it's binary or
source mostly, so I think this clause may be compatible too, for the
same reasons as the #1 clause in the BSD licenses.

The third clause seems outside the scope of modification and
redistribution, referring to endorsement.


Cheers,

Dave