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

Re: copyright on upstream patches

Le Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:16:26AM +0100, Harald Jenny a écrit :
> I also thought about this but as the license text for the University of
> California differes slightly from the one of Petr Rehor I wasn't sure this is
> the correct way to do it - I also thought about:

Oops, I missed this as the first and the last BSD texts were identical…
> Files: *
> Copyright: 2005, Petr Rehor <rx@rx.cz>
> License: BSD-1
> Files: compat/fts_compat.h, compat/daemon.c, compat/mkdtemp.c,
>        compat/fts_open.c
> Copyright: 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, The Regents of the University of
>            California
> License: BSD
> Files: debian/*
> Copyright: 2009-2011, Harald Jenny <harald@a-little-linux-box.at>
> License: BSD-1
> License: BSD-1
> As I'm not sure how detailed the exact wording of the license text must be
> preserved I wanted to be on the safe side but when it's ok to just use the
> amavisd-milter License stanza also for the University of California this is for
> sure better... what's the list's opinion on this?

That is a good point. My personal impression (but not really an informed
opinion: I am ready to change my mind if I hear good arguments), is that if the
license text is not identical to the reference BSD license, then it is not the
BSD license.

Note that if you pick BSD-1 as a keyword, it looks like a versionned short
name. How about BSD-like ?



Reply to: