[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cssc license

The only issue with the BSD 4 clause is that it was GPL incompatible, not
that it was non-free.  You really don't want to know the consequences of
calling the 4 clause BSDL non-free: let's just say that we'd have a lot
easier time fitting main on a single CD (I'm thinking zip disk
personally).  If cssc has any GPL parts, there's a problem; otherwise,
let's not go looking into closets we all know there're skeletons
in...  You'll find a lot of manpages under BSDL variants: the FSF crowd
has disdained man pages in favor of info pages for years, so the man pages
are often copied from the BSD version.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Yann Dirson wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:08:25PM +0100, Michael Weber wrote:
> > But, what's more important, I remember some license issues.
> > Eventually, the infamous "Ad clause" is in the man page (and also in
> > the "bsd" dir of the source distribution) :(  I always wanted to
> > contact upstream about this, but, well, since I forgot the package...
> > 
> > [606]$ man sccs|grep -A5 "advertising"
> >      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.
> > 	  
> > Could be a problem, couldn't it?
> Well, IANAL, but it may just be the "obnoxious BSD advertising
> clause", why has cause its (nearly) own exception paragraph in the
> Legal people, do you confirm ?
> Best regards,

Sacred cows make the best burgers

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!!!

Reply to: