Yeah Thanks. I was having a look at some of the source code and you are right Jeremy. The code licencing for most BSD's before 4.4BSD or non UNIX/32V and Versions 1-7 of Unix is really mixed and unclear as to the licence. Which is sad to some degree and makes it a nightmare. Though i have always gone on the assumption the pdp-11 16-bit BSD's (aka 2.11BSD) were under a 4-clause BSD style licence but it hasn't really been clear cut, a large reason why i posted this. So i think in some ways it would provide a lot of benefit and be interesting to find out just for curiosity if anything
Martin On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:55 PM, John Nemeth <jnem...@cue.bc.ca> wrote: > On Feb 10, 4:41am, Martin wrote: > } > } Well it all honesty 3BSD was just an example that came to my head. I am > } actually looking at 2.11BSD mostly. > } I understand the caldera licence is a bsd-style licence which correct me > if > } I'm wrong includes 2.11BSD? > } So what you are saying is i could create a fork/ continuation of the > } 2.11BSD under for example 2.11BSD-Prismatic? > } What is the deal with licencing for example with 4.3BSD-Quasijarus have > } they just kept the original licence or have they been able to place their > } fork of 4.3BSD-Tahoe under current BSD equivalent licence? > } Sounds like a stupid question but I would prefer to if possible Licence > it > } the 3-clause BSD, as that is the license I will be using for any new > code. > > I meant to respond to your first note. The bottom line is > that if you fork something, the original licence goes with the > code. You absolutely can NOT change a licence under any circumstances. > Only the original copyright holder can change the licence. If the > original copyright holder has given permission to use a different > licence then you may do so, but only then. > > }-- End of excerpt from Martin >
