[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:0.087 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site