> Am 28.02.2015 um 08:10 schrieb Sune Vuorela <[email protected]>: > >> 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. > UC writes BSD Unix files not about general source code. And why does gnu,org not update their website,but till insists on incompatibility with the GNU GPL?
Regards, Gunnar _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
