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

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.

ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change doesn't
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.)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: