I think there was an updated BSD license approved by Berkeley that we are using.
If we took the file unchanged, I would not remove the copyright because it is the file _unchanged_, no? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't change the copyright, but I think we can take the copyright > > of the project rather than those of the individual files. > > So can we remove the offending license clauses, then? > > Also, it's worth noting that the license in 'COPYRIGHT' is not exactly > the same as the 3 clause BSD license the BSDs are licensed under, > which is: > > --- > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > are met: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > 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 the University nor the names of its > contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived > from this software without specific prior written permission. > --- > > (from http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/redistribution.html) > > For example, the 3rd clause is no where to be found in our > license. Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure how significant this is. > > -Neil > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
