On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit "Joel Baker" <lucifer@lightbearer.com> > > > A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system > > libraries? This appears, on casual inspection, to qualify for the > > purpose of the GPL's 'system library' exception, in both spirit and > > letter, but I would hate to get bitten later. > > The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that > component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to count > as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff appears > in Debian's main archive. I've argued that this is the interpretation > that is most likely to fit RMS's intentions with the GPL. Since the relevant packages would be Required+Essential (libc12) or Standard (libc12-dev), mapping the current libc6/libc6-dev in i386, this seems like it should meet that qualification. > > B) What is required to meet the advertising requirements of a 4-clause > > BSD license? Would it suffice to have the entirety of the list in > > the copyright file, and a pointer from release announcements? > > Um, sorry for being slow, but what is a "4-clause" BSD license? One > that has positive as well as negative advertising clauses? Would such a > license even be internally consistent? 4 clause being the old BSD license which has an advertising clause as #3. The revised BSD license only has 3 clauses. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Attachment:
pgpdhX90YxQc7.pgp
Description: PGP signature