Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
Christopher Martin wrote: I'd like to get a debian-legal opinion on a potential issue with the kdeartwork package. debian-legal was CCed (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00235.html) on an earlier discussion of the problem problem by Ben Burton, but didn't receive much feedback from this list. Thus I'm raising the issue again. Ben Burton summarized the problem as follows: --- The problem here is a potential conflict between GPL and BSD-with-advertising-clause; see http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-develm=109779477208076w=2 for my original post. The question now is whether the advertising clause can be assumed to be rescinded. The UC Regents rescinded the advertising clause in 1999, but the vm_random.c used in kdeartwork appears to have been taken and modified from BSD before then. Certainly the change in 1999 applies to BSD software distributed since then, as evidenced by the fact that they removed the advertising clause from the corresponding source files. But it's not obvious to me that the change applies to software distributed beforehand (such as random.c from which vm_random.c was modified, in kdeartwork). There's also the trouble that the license they are modifying in your link is similar to but not the same as the license on vm_random.c (presumably because vm_random.c was from a much older BSD). And aside from this, there's the problem that vm_random.c was modified since it was taken from BSD, and the modifications are presumably also under the BSD-with-advertising-clause (since that's what vm_random's copyright notice says). In this case, my understanding is that UC Berkeley cannot change the licensing for someone else's modifications. --- README.Impt.License.Change has come up here before, and the conclusion was that it does retroactively rescind the clause for all software copyrighted by UC Berkeley, including older versions. However, it certainly can't affect software copyrighted by others; for such software, you need to get permission from the copyright holders. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
On Friday 15 October 2004 04:22, Ben Burton wrote: Hi, (CCing debian-legal since they know better than I do. The problem here is a potential conflict between GPL and BSD-with-advertising-clause; see http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-develm=109779477208076w=2 for my original post. The question now is whether the advertising clause can be assumed to be rescinded. Any comment would be welcome.) Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety. So the mentioned paragraph in vm_random.c should be considered struck as per July 22, 1999 Cheers, Waldo -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SUSE LINUX 9.2: Order now! | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.suse.de/us/private/products/suse_linux/preview/index.html pgpv7aizkz32r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
Hi, So the mentioned paragraph in vm_random.c should be considered struck as per July 22, 1999 In which case, could you (or someone else willing to take this responsibility) please delete the clause from vm_random.c in CVS to avoid future confusion? Thanks - Ben.
Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
On Friday 15 October 2004 12:13, Ben Burton wrote: Hi, So the mentioned paragraph in vm_random.c should be considered struck as per July 22, 1999 In which case, could you (or someone else willing to take this responsibility) please delete the clause from vm_random.c in CVS to avoid future confusion? I don't think I can because the other part of the license says Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms ... Cheers, Waldo -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SUSE LINUX 9.2: Order now! | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.suse.de/us/private/products/suse_linux/preview/index.html pgpBu7TZL3Isk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
On Friday 15 October 2004 12:54, Andrew Coles wrote: On Friday 15 Oct 2004 11:37, Waldo Bastian wrote: I don't think I can because the other part of the license says Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms ... Then how about adding: The aforementioned advertising clause was officially retracted in 1999: licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. As such, this licence is compatible with the GNU GPL, for those concerned. Good idea, I added /* * Please note that as of July 22, 1999, the licensees and distributors * are no longer required to include the above mentioned acknowledgement * within advertising materials. For full details see * ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change */ Cheers, Waldo -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SUSE LINUX 9.2: Order now! | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.suse.de/us/private/products/suse_linux/preview/index.html pgpfHn1cbFSxT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
Good idea, I added (...) Many thanks. Ben.
Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
That retraction is only valid for original BSD code, not for any changes to it. Ah, sorry -- don't drink derive, etc. -- this was also one of my concerns, especially since the file does seem to have been through some refashioning since it was pulled out of BSD. If any changes were made by us we'll need those committers to distance themselves from the advertising clause as well. Note that there also seem to be changes earlier on by non-KDE people (the comments at least read as though it was redesigned for glibc, and only later taken over to KDE). If it is too difficult to case up all the contributers to vm_random.c, might it be easier to alter the licensing on the KDE portions of the screensaver (the GPLed parts) in the meantime? Ben.
Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
On October 15, 2004 09:36 am, Ben Burton wrote: If it is too difficult to case up all the contributers to vm_random.c, might it be easier to alter the licensing on the KDE portions of the screensaver (the GPLed parts) in the meantime? Might it be even *easier*, to avoid all this hassle, to take a new copy of vm_random.c from a recent BSD, which is one without the advertising clause, do a diff, make required changes (without verbatin compying), and use that file? The new file will be a derrivitive work of the more recent vm_random.c, not the old one, so all this will be moot. -- There are two major products that came out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We do not believe this to be a coincidence. ~Jeremy S. Anderson
Re: License conflict for VM screensaver (kdeartwork)
Hi, (CCing debian-legal since they know better than I do. The problem here is a potential conflict between GPL and BSD-with-advertising-clause; see http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-develm=109779477208076w=2 for my original post. The question now is whether the advertising clause can be assumed to be rescinded. Any comment would be welcome.) The UC Regents rescinded the advertising clause in 1999. But the vm_random.c used in kdeartwork appears to have been taken and modified from BSD before then. Certainly the change in 1999 applies to BSD software distributed since then, as evidenced by the fact that they removed the advertising clause from the corresponding source files. But it's not obvious to me that the change applies to software distributed beforehand (such as random.c from which vm_random.c was modified). There's also the trouble that the license they are modifying in your link is similar to but not the same as the license on vm_random.c (presumably because vm_random.c was from a much older BSD). And aside from this, there's the problem that vm_random.c was modified since it was taken from BSD, and the modifications are presumably also under the BSD-with-advertising-clause (since that's what vm_random's copyright notice says). In this case, my understanding is that UC Berkeley cannot change the licensing for someone else's modifications. Ben.
