Hi,
My name is Sergio Belkin I maintain UpTools package. That package has a License that has 4 clauses and because of that I get confused and labeld as "BSD with advertising". But a closer read of "BSD with advertising" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_BSD_... makes to understand that is the License that we are using is not "BSD with advertising". Anyway I wonder if even that has 4 clauses it's a "BSD" license. I've found that cyrus-sasl has the same license and its license it was as "BSD" but maintainer changed the tag License, surely because of a bug I reported.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679416
But again, seeing more deeply it doesn't seem "BSD with advertising".
In short: Please could you tell me if the following License can be tagged as "BSD" i.e. BSD License (no advertising)
/* UpTools v8.5 * * Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Fundacion Universidad de Palermo (Argentina). * All rights reserved. * * 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. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its * contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * * 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following * acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the * "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).' * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS * "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 COPYRIGHT * HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS 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. */
(End of License)
Thanks in advance
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:32, Sergio Belkin sebelk@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
My name is Sergio Belkin I maintain UpTools package. That package has a License that has 4 clauses and because of that I get confused and labeld as "BSD with advertising". But a closer read of "BSD with advertising" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_BSD_... makes to understand that is the License that we are using is not "BSD with advertising". Anyway I wonder if even that has 4 clauses it's a "BSD" license. I've found that cyrus-sasl has the same license and its license it was as "BSD" but maintainer changed the tag License, surely because of a bug I reported.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679416
But again, seeing more deeply it doesn't seem "BSD with advertising".
In short: Please could you tell me if the following License can be tagged as "BSD" i.e. BSD License (no advertising)
The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the following license terms:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
That would seem equivalent to
- Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
- acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the
- "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the following license terms:
- All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
That would seem equivalent to
- Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
- acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the
- "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause. The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.
GPLv3 explicitly permits incorporation of code covered by terms the require "preservation of specified reasonable ... author attributions in that material". I think that the way this acknowledgement requirement is worded is consistent with that. There is some uncertainty over whether that clause in GPLv3 was intended to codify established practice under GPLv2 or set a new rule, and I know there is at least one license where the FSF has said, post-GPLv3, that the license was GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible based on some sort of acknowledgement requirement. So this might be (at least in the FSF's influential view) one of those strange cases where the license is GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible, but maybe not. We'll have to figure that issue out (unless we've done so already).
But anyway, I think both "BSD" and "BSD with advertising" are incorrect license tags here. Maybe "BSD with attribution" would work?
- RF
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 13:56, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the following license terms:
- All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
That would seem equivalent to
* 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following * acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the * "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause. The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.
Ack.. and I forgot my IANL I am just trying to be helpful clause on my email. My apologies for making things muddier.
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:42 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 13:56, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the following license terms:
- All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
That would seem equivalent to
- Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
- acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the
- "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause. The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.
Ack.. and I forgot my IANL I am just trying to be helpful clause on my email. My apologies for making things muddier.
Smooge:
no need to apologize this list is often as clear as mud :)
-Justin 'threethirty' O'Brien <- NAL
2011/5/13 Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the following license terms:
- All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
That would seem equivalent to
* 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following * acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the * "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause. The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.
GPLv3 explicitly permits incorporation of code covered by terms the require "preservation of specified reasonable ... author attributions in that material". I think that the way this acknowledgement requirement is worded is consistent with that. There is some uncertainty over whether that clause in GPLv3 was intended to codify established practice under GPLv2 or set a new rule, and I know there is at least one license where the FSF has said, post-GPLv3, that the license was GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible based on some sort of acknowledgement requirement. So this might be (at least in the FSF's influential view) one of those strange cases where the license is GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible, but maybe not. We'll have to figure that issue out (unless we've done so already).
Thanks for your analysis.
But anyway, I think both "BSD" and "BSD with advertising" are incorrect license tags here. Maybe "BSD with attribution" would work?
I think as you, Richard. Advertising and attribution is not the sam ething. Please consider for example clause 3 and 66 of the OpenSSL license (http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html).
So, we agree that both cyrus-sasl and UpTools has neither BSD nor "BSD with advertising". "BSD with attribution" does not exist by now. Could "BSD with attribution" be appended to the list mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses ?
I look forward your answer in order to make the proper corrections and set the License tag in the right way.
Thanks in advance"
- RF
-- Richard E. Fontana Red Hat, Inc.
2011/5/15 Sergio Belkin sebelk@gmail.com:
2011/5/13 Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The clause that causes GPL problems in the original BSD was the following license terms:
- All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must
display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
That would seem equivalent to
* 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following * acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the * "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).'
so it would seem that your software is BSD with advertising clause.
I don't agree that it is equivalent to BSD with advertising clause. The question is whether the acknowledgement clause makes the license GPL-incompatible in the same way that the advertising clause in the old BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.
GPLv3 explicitly permits incorporation of code covered by terms the require "preservation of specified reasonable ... author attributions in that material". I think that the way this acknowledgement requirement is worded is consistent with that. There is some uncertainty over whether that clause in GPLv3 was intended to codify established practice under GPLv2 or set a new rule, and I know there is at least one license where the FSF has said, post-GPLv3, that the license was GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible based on some sort of acknowledgement requirement. So this might be (at least in the FSF's influential view) one of those strange cases where the license is GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible, but maybe not. We'll have to figure that issue out (unless we've done so already).
Thanks for your analysis.
But anyway, I think both "BSD" and "BSD with advertising" are incorrect license tags here. Maybe "BSD with attribution" would work?
I think as you, Richard. Advertising and attribution is not the sam ething. Please consider for example clause 3 and 66 of the OpenSSL license (http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html).
Sorry for the typo, I meant 6.
So, we agree that both cyrus-sasl and UpTools has neither BSD nor "BSD with advertising". "BSD with attribution" does not exist by now. Could "BSD with attribution" be appended to the list mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses ?
I look forward your answer in order to make the proper corrections and set the License tag in the right way.
Thanks in advance"
- RF
-- Richard E. Fontana Red Hat, Inc.
--
Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org
On 05/15/2011 03:18 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
So, we agree that both cyrus-sasl and UpTools has neither BSD nor "BSD with advertising". "BSD with attribution" does not exist by now. Could "BSD with attribution" be appended to the list mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses ?
I look forward your answer in order to make the proper corrections and set the License tag in the right way.
I have added BSD with attribution to the Licensing list. While it is clearly Free, GPL compatibility is not clear at this time.
~tom
== Fedora Project
-
Richard Fontana -
Sergio Belkin -
Stephen John Smoogen -
threethirty -
Tom Callaway