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])

Reply via email to