Re: flowc license
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 04:38:18PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Francesco Poli:
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:17:24 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> >> But in my experience, when
> >> contacting authors, a great many of them simply copied boilerplate
> >> from an old BSD license, and if you discuss with them the rationale
> >> given by the University of California when they
> >> mass-retroactively-relicensed from the 4-clause to 3-clause license,
> >> they may well be quite happy to relicense.
> > Could you please provide an URL for this rationale?
> Just search for the string "REGENTS" in these license copies. Often,
> the name of the copyright holder is changed, but the following
> disclaimer is copied verbatim, even though "regents" doesn't have much
> meaning when the copyright holder (or distributor) is not an
> organization with such a supervisory body.
I don't quite know what you mean: I think he was asking for the
rationale for dropping the advertising clause, which you won't find in
the license texts.
mention rationale, either.
(I've heard claims that UofC's relicensing was based more on the fact that
the clause is probably unenforcable than the FSF's practical complaints.
I don't know if that's true.)