Date: 03 Sep 1999 10:10:54 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: walton@nordicrecords.com Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Berkeley removes Advertising Clause Message-ID: <xzpwvu8wh2p.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: "Dave Walton"'s message of "Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:09:19 -0700" References: <19990902221136.3481.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Dave Walton" <walton@nordicrecords.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpwvu8wh2p.fsf>