On 22/10/10 10:12, John Vandenberg wrote:
bsdiff is listed as 'Third Party Code' under a the 'BSD Protection
License'. It appears to be Non-Product code.
It is non-product code; my understanding is that it is used for the
creation (but not application; that is bspatch) of Firefox updates.
However, it seems that the latest version of the license, version 4.3,
is available under a straight BSD license:
http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/
However 'BSD Protection License' does not appear in that list.
There is a 2002 thread about this license on
[email protected], but it doesn't appear to have led to a
conclusion.
Indeed not. I think it's probably an open source licence, definitely in
intent and probably in practice (although the email thread raises an
interesting point about having to explicitly say people can sell the
software).
But, given the above, I suggest we fix this problem by importing the
latest version, rather than debating the license.
The JPEG 'license' is also not on the OSI list.
That is more surprising.
http://www.evolane.com/software/etcl/3rdparty/jpeg-LICENSE.txt
It seems to me that this license is a (perhaps less clear) rewrite of
the 3-clause BSD licence - include this notice, don't use my name, no
warranty.
If so, perhaps this can be noted on the licensing page?
Is bullet 6 a hard and fast rule?
>
If there is another chunk of code which is available under a JPEG-like
license, which is basically 'as-is' but with a mandatory documentation
notice, would licensing require that it first goes through the OSI
approval process?
It depends what you mean by a "mandatory documentation notice". If you
mean a 4-clause-BSD-like advertising clause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29
(clause 3 in that text)
then that has been deemed to be not open source compatible. If you mean
that someone has done yet another unclear rewrite of the terms of the
3-clause BSD licence, then... let's have a look at what they've said :-)
The opensource.org list is a good rule of thumb, and we would certainly
have pause before using software under a licence not on it. But it is
not an exhaustive list of every OSD-compliant licence in the world, and
so the possibility exists that we would accept software under a licence
not on the list, after careful evaluation.
Does that answer your question? It would help if you could be more
specific about which code we are talking about.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
