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

Re: right of publicity, or why no-advertising clauses are not necessary



On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:54:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
  | For what it's worth, I think the NetBSD Foundation has already reached
  | this conclusion, which is why they use a 2-clause form of the BSD
  | license, with both the compelled-advertising and no-advertising clauses
  | removed.

Actually, the vote to remove clause 3 (advertising), or clauses 2
(documentation) & 3 (advertising), did not obtain a majority, so
the NetBSD Foundation license is still the "classic" 4 clause BSD.

Other BSD groups may have decided to drop clause 3 (advertising)
and clause 4 (no endorse) from their proposed licenses.

Note that other organisations have contributed code to NetBSD
under what's effectively a clause 1 & 4 license, which is
considered less onerous restrictions on third party binary
distributors because they don't have to compile a list of
copyrights for their documentation to meet clause 2 and
clause 3.  An example of this can be found at:
	http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/sys/arch/mips/sibyte/dev/sbmac.c?rev=1.19&content-type=text/plain

(FWIW: I understand that this should be GPL compatible)

Cheers,
Luke.

(speaking personally, not officially for TNF)

Attachment: pgpdyJPsigLE5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: