> Well https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html says > Original BSD license (#OriginalBSD) > This license is also sometimes called the “4-clause BSD license”. > > This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious > flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, > it does not render the software nonfree. But it does cause practical > problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL. > > but ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change says > Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to > include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the > foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted > in its entirety. > > But does the week number code fall under the category BSD Unix files ? > > So who is right her? GNU.org, Thiago ? I am not a lawyer( thank god :-) ) or > judge to decide this.
Everybody is right. 4-clause-BSD is incompatible with BSD, but as you write yourself, the university of california has removed the obnoxious clause from all their software, so it is just 3-clause licensed, even if you have a old copy of it. /Sune - who also not is a lawyer. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
