On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:49:03PM +0000, Stephen Turner wrote: > On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > You mean advertising clauses, right? The old 4-clause BSD license? > > > > Just a BSD-style license with a copyright *notice* doesn't render > > something GPL-incompatible. > > > > Well, some of each, in fact. > > But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib licence, for example, > which contains the condition: > 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. > The FSF says that this is compatible with the GPL, but I don't understand > how this can be so. It imposes an extra restriction, namely the requirement > to reproduce the zlib copyright and licence notice, in addition to the terms > of the GPL. Can someone explain to me how this can be GPL-compatible? [from clause 2 of the GPL] These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. The above language leads me to believe that the intent of the GPL is NOT to say that telling people they cannot remove the text of a copyright notice, or a license text that applies to a work, is not allowed. If you have any concerns about this at all I suggest asking the FSF directly. If you are the intended GPL licensor, you can always make explicit that you will not enforce clause 2 of the GPL in this manner, though I suggest being pretty precise about it. I'm happy to help you write something appropriately anal-retentive. Also, regarding the 4-clause BSD license, the Regents of the University of California have abandoned and retroactively relicensed all code under that license. See <ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change>. -- G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpGwDIEWoaBD.pgp
Description: PGP signature