[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: License question
    >>>>> "Misshielle" == Misshielle Wong <> writes:

    Misshielle> Hello On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:06:32 -0800, David Schwartz
    Misshielle> <> wrote:

    >>> > - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
    >>> copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following
    >>> disclaimers in the > documentation and/or other materials provided
    >>> with the distribution.
    >> I believe this is an additional restriction as well.

    Misshielle> I find perfectly fine. Is just a request to include the
    Misshielle> copyright notice and conditions along with the
    Misshielle> binary. Section 2, clause c does not override. Does not
    Misshielle> infringe Section 6 either. What is the problem?

    You may find this one fine, but that doesn't make it fly, sorry.
    Requiring people to redistribute the license notice in all
    documentation included with the binaries is an additional restriction
    which is not found in the GPL. So a very clear no cannot do.

    This is also known as the BSD 'advertisement' clause which was the
    main reason we could never use BSD code in the old days. Berkeley has
    since updated their license and removed this clause from it, however
    the license still poses a problem since it doesn't include an explicit
    patent license grant, but thats a completely different issue.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.021 / U:1.588 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site