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:
pgpTRhMGVAwmn.pgp
Description: PGP signature