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

Re: BSD license, core libraries, and NetBSD



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: pgpOPst6LYbqW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: