Kunle Odutola schrieb: > Hi > , >> Note that it shows specifically now 3 clause not 4 clause (old >> style). For some reason, Kunle/Michael made their C# contribution >> 4clause BSD even though the link to the certificate of origin sits >> under the three clause BSD license on the same page. They refuse to >> change it so I will be throwing out all their work when I can. Please >> let me know if for some reason there is a difference for you. > > Not sure why you dragged this up again but... > > You might want to change that agreement document again. Not all 3-clause BSD > licenses are "new style". Similarly, not all 4-clause BSD licenses are "old > style". > A 3-clause license with the advertising clause isn't "new style". Just > include the license text or a URL (I got the printed agreement from Micheal > and it just said BSD license). > > Second, for completeness > > Ter: >> [SNIP]W/o a change to 3 clause license, I'll be forced to consider >> throwing out the >> C# target and going a different route. > > Kunle: >> As you wish. > > Ter: >> License issues have really bitten me in the past with my users. > > Kunle: >> You've failed to identify any real issue with the current license so far. >> You seemed unaware of the content of the last clause in the license in >> your >> reply to Micheal. > > Ter: >> * 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. >> >> In this case, you want to any material using ANTLR C# target to put a >> note in their advertisement that they use ANTLR C# target? An >> unpalatable restriction to some which is why we've all removed it and >> I've got rest of project using BSD w/o that. >> [SNIP...] >> Seems unfair to taint >> entire product with such a restriction. >> That clause means no one will mention your work >> because they'd have to add that clause. Means lawyers get afraid >> etc... I'm sure you're aware of my 20 years of listening to people >> whine to me about my software licenses. My concerns are not idle >> lawyer paranoia. >> >> May I please change the license to not require users to mention ANTLR >> C# target in their advertisement? > > Kunle: >> The license has no such clause or requirement. > > Kunle: >> Have you read the license? > > > I thinks that's a good summary of the thread. > > Just to be clear, the C# target and templates (which are a part of ANTLR) > have always been under the same license as the rest of the ANTLR codebase. > > For the runtime, I used the BSD license from LICENSE.TXT file in ST# [we > screwed up and the ST# source files ended up with a different BSD license > but we're okay with either - they're both BSD, both "new style" BSD ;-) ]. > > You may include or dump some or, all of the C# bits in line with the BSD > license. > > Kunle
I've dug into the license texts and found the following. The problematic clause is the following one: 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.” But the 4-clause license in the C# target doesn't include this text. In effect, it is identical with the one used by Ter while adding this: Unless explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in this work to the copyright owner or licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this license, without any additional terms or conditions. Barring the typo, this effectively says the same as the contributor license does. It is actually redundant and can be removed. It should be removed because the contribution license points out to a particular BSD license - via a hypertext link to the website where the 3 clause license is detailed (Ter told me that this text never changed beyound adjusting the years). And even if it isn't mentioned in the license itself - one can't go around and choose a license himself. IANAL but that Ter uses a particular one already makes the intent quite clear which one he actually means. BTW, you didn't give each and every file that new license header, so effectively those files are inherently BSD-3 clause licensed. To make it short, the whole mess is based on a misunderstanding because we counted only the clauses and didn't compared them letter by letter. Although adding this clause unilaterally was not a polite thing to do. IMO, adding to every file a license header with the complete text instead a referral to a LICENSE.TXT is a mistake, too. With a referral the intent to use a particular license is clear and every contributor can add his name in one place without having to worry if a small bug fix is enough to earn his name in the license header. Johannes _______________________________________________ antlr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.antlr.org:8080/mailman/listinfo/antlr-dev
