Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:17:44 -0800
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Subject: Re: License question
References: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAEGJJKAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Misshielle Wong <mwl@bajoo.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <opr1z8vu11q5eh14@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAEGJJKAA.davids@webmaster.com>
User-Agent: Opera7.23/Linux M2 build 518
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4402
Lines: 106

Hi. Go do your homework. Check the URLs I gave you. The list of 
GPL-compatible licenses include licenses with the exact same 
"restrictions", namely the Modified BSD license. The URL is from GNU 
official page, so it is official that such licenses are accepted.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

I quote the text from there. It is a close match to the license in 
question, and has the same "restrictions" you are disputing.


Text from www.gnu.org:
=====
The modified BSD license. http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
(Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the 
"General" section.)

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising 
clause. It is a simple,
permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the 
modified BSD license is a
reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD 
license'', because confusion
could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To 
avoid this risk, you can
suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD 
license are more or less
equivalent.
=====

Text from www.xfree.org:
=====
2.2.1. General

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, 
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products 
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR 
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES 
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN 
NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED 
TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR 
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF 
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING 
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS 
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
=====

There. Now stop arguing.


On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:29:00 -0800, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> 
wrote:

>
> 	It's really this simple. The GPL allows you to require a copyright 
> notice, disclaimer of liability, and the GPL itself be included in a 
> copy. However, this license also requires you to include additional 
> statements about the requirement to include a copyright notice. Nothing 
> in the GPL permits you to require other notices or license requirements 
> to be in the distribution. So this is an additional restriction.
>
> 	Please, tell me where the GPL says you are permitted to mandate the 
> inclusion of other license restriction language in the distribution. A 
> statement that you must include a copyright is not itself a copyright 
> notice nor is it a disclaimer of liability.
>
> 	The license we are discussing requires you to include the following 
> notice:
>
>> >> > - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> >> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
>
> 	This notice is not itself a copyright notice, it's a license term. It's 
> also not a disclaimer of liability. It's also not the GPL. These are the 
> only three things the GPL permits you to mandate.
>
> 	If you can show me a clause in the GPL that permits you to mandate 
> license requirements other than the text of the GPL itself, please do 
> so. Otherwise, this is an additional restriction.
>
> 	DS
>
>
>


-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/