From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 3 1:11: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F8E14FFB for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:11:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08120; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:10:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: walton@nordicrecords.com Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Berkeley removes Advertising Clause References: <19990902221136.3481.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 03 Sep 1999 10:10:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: "Dave Walton"'s message of "Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:09:19 -0700" Message-ID: Lines: 24 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Dave Walton" writes: > Anyone see this item on slashdot? > Someone immediately came to the conclusion that they can now > re-release BSD code under the GPL. I'm not sure I see the > connection... The advertising clause is a "further restriction" which conflicts with the GPL's requirement that "no further restrictions" be placed on the code. The removal of the advertising clause makes it possible to relicense BSD code under the GPL. What a lot of people seem to have missed is that Berkeley's removal of the advertising clause only affects Berkeley's code (that is, code which is "Copyright 19xx The Regents of the University of California.") Any *other* code released under the BSD license *with* the advertising clause is unaffected. Contrast this with the common practice, in the GPL world, of releasing code "under the terms of the GNU Public License version 2 or newer", which makes it possible for the FSF to change the license *even on code they were never involved in writing*. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message