DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SCO after BSD settlement


From: Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:30:45 -0500

You are still required to have the Copyright notice:
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html

Here is the license template:

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 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.
* Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.


THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Thats it.

The advertising clause has nothing to do with Microsoft not putting the copyright notice somewhere in the source and manuals and other distributed documentation. The URL has a link explaining exactly what claus was rescinded and what it actually said.

Thats what I don't like about this whole SCO thing: too much heresay and no critical thinking.

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:

-On [20031123 21:02], Gary Thorpe (gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:

But I was talking about _Microsoft_ not SCO, although its lucky for
them that many open source advocates are selectively outraged.


So was Matt, remember that the UCB nullified the advertising clause in their BSDL revision a year or two ago (perhaps longer already).



Microsoft would still be violating the license if they don't have that copyright notice.





[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]