On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 10:01, James Lentini wrote: > My understanding is as follows: A copyright and a license are > different. A copyright gives the creator the right to license the > code. > > > > Like other OpenIB code, the uDAPL code can be taken under either a BSD > > > license or GPLv2. uDAPL also allows the code to be licensed under the > > > Common Public License 1.0. > > > > What license is actually on the uDAPL files themselves ? > > The license text gives a user the option of any of the three licenses: > > /* > * Copyright (c) 2002-2003, Network Appliance, Inc. All rights > * reserved. > * > * This Software is licensed under one of the following licenses: > * > * 1) under the terms of the "Common Public License 1.0" a copy of > * which is available from the Open Source Initiative, see > * http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php. > * > * 2) under the terms of the "The BSD License" a copy of which is > * available from the Open Source Initiative, see > * http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. > * > * 3) under the terms of the "GNU General Public License (GPL) Version > * 2" a copy of which is available from the Open Source Initiative, > * see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php. > * > * Licensee has the right to choose one of the above licenses. > * > * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > * notice and one of the license notices. > * > * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce both the above > * copyright notice, one of the license notices in the documentation > * and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > */
That's fine. I didn't look closely enough. I didn't see the choices. I thought it was the old license. Sorry. -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
