Brian Hulley wrote:
Copyright (c) 1988 XYZ ...
1) Redistributions of source code...
2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce
the above copyright notice, this list of conditions
and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3) Neither the name of XYZ nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission.
In order to comply with 2), it suggests I'd need to insert something
along the lines of:
Portions of this software are copyrighted by XYZ, PQR, STU, ...
Portions of this software are provided by XYZ, ..., "as is" and
any express or implied warranties ...
but does this infringe on 3), which states that the name of XYZ should
not be used to endorse the product? Ie is the mention of XYZ's name in
the license considered to *not* be an endorsement?
Giving proper copyright attribution is not considered an endorsement, no.
And what about "this list of conditions"? Does that also include the
first condition ("Redistributions of source code ...") even though only
a binary executable is being supplied to the licensee? I also don't want
the licensee to get confused and think the whole executable is being
distributed under BSD.
Typically in a binary distribution people just add the "Portions (c) The
University of Glasgow" and the disclaimer. If your proprietary license does not
allow redistribution of the binary, then all the conditions in the BSD license
are irrelevant. However, if your license *does* allow redistribution, then such
redistribution must also comply with the license on the BSD parts of the code,
so you should include something equivalent to those requirements in your license
(that is, reproduce the copyright notices and disclaimer, and pass on the these
conditions if further redistribution is allowed).
Also what about the application's "about" dialog or help pages?
There's no requirement in the BSD license that you have to put the copyright
notice in the about dialog or the help pages (IIRC this is what the XFree86
project tried to do, and much uproar resulted).
Would an
acknowledgement of libraries used in the code and their authors be
considered to be using them to endorse my product or would it be
regarded as a welcome acknowledgement for their hard work in making the
libraries available? Is this required or prohibited by the BSD license?
There are no clear cut rules about what constitutes an endorsement, as far as
I'm aware. Use your judgement: if you plaster "(c) the University of Glasgow"
in big letters at the top of the splash screen, that might be considered an
endorsement, but burying it amongst several such notices in the back page of the
manual would not be.
Surprisingly, although I have looked at several websites which discuss
the BSD license, none of them actually say what the practical down to
earth text of a proprietary license of a binary executable using BSD
licensed components is supposed to look like.
Have a look at what Microsoft do, if you have a copy of Windows lying around...
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
