License question
Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this BSD-style license ?
Copyright (c) 2002 Echo Digital Audio
All rights reserved.
www.echoaudio.com
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal with the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- Neither the name of Echo Digital Audio, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without specific prior written permission.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE.
--
Giuliano.
Quoted 3 lines · Giuliano Pochini
Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this BSD-style license ?
Why a "BSD-style" rather than a straight BSD license? The question of BSD and GPL compatability is already a done deal. If you say "BSD-style", we then need to go through clause-by-clause and figure out how it's different from the BSD license and what implications it has.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
There's enough of the damned things already. Please don't invent another one.
Quoted 3 lines · Valdis.Kletniek
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
There's enough of the damned things already. Please don't invent another one.
In fact, exactly the same text is there:
Hello
Quoted 4 lines · Giuliano Pochini
Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this BSD-style license ?
Let me see
Quoted 16 lines
Copyright (c) 2002 Echo Digital Audio
All rights reserved.
www.echoaudio.comPermission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal with the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
Quoted 8 lines
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- Neither the name of Echo Digital Audio, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without specific prior written permission.
Mmmm... I think yes. Code in kernel must be licensed GPL. Above allow sublicense so ok
Quoted 18 lines
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE.
--
Giuliano.-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Signature · 1 line
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this BSD-style license ?
Let me see
Yes, in general. No, not this license.
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
Sorry, that's an "additional restriction" not permitted under the GPL.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
I believe this is an additional restriction as well.
Quoted 2 lines
Mmmm... I think yes. Code in kernel must be licensed GPL. Above allow sublicense so ok
They allow sublicensing, but the sublicense can't remove the additional restriction. See section 6 of the GPL.
To make this license GPL compatible, the two restrictions above would have to be modified to be identical to, or a proper subset of, section 2 clauses b and c of the GPL.
DS
Hello
Quoted 9 lines · David Schwartz
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this BSD-style license ?
Let me see
Yes, in general. No, not this license.
Hahaha
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
Sorry, that's an "additional restriction" not permitted under the GPL.
This is no restriction. This here just asks for copyright notice and conditions to NOT be removed, which is perfectly fine. Section 6 never overrides this. Section 6 asks not to restrict rights, and above clause does not restrict rights.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
I believe this is an additional restriction as well.
I find perfectly fine. Is just a request to include the copyright notice and conditions along with the binary. Section 2, clause c does not override. Does not infringe Section 6 either. What is the problem?
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Mmmm... I think yes. Code in kernel must be licensed GPL. Above allow sublicense so ok
They allow sublicensing, but the sublicense can't remove the additional
restriction. See section 6 of the GPL.To make this license GPL compatible, the two restrictions above would
have to be modified to be identical to, or a proper subset of, section 2 clauses b and c of the GPL.
Hahaha, those are no restrictions, so no problem. Summarizing this license, it ends up like this: "Copyright bla bla bla. Keep 'em goddamn copyrights and disclaimer or else you have no rights to copy, modify, sublicense, redistribute, sublicense bla bla bla. Software provided 'as is'. Clear?"
GPL is ok with that.
Quoted 4 lines
DS
Signature · 1 line
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Misshielle" == Misshielle Wong <[email protected]> writes:
Misshielle> Hello On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:06:32 -0800, David Schwartz
Quoted 5 lines · Misshielle> <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
I believe this is an additional restriction as well.
Misshielle> I find perfectly fine. Is just a request to include the Misshielle> copyright notice and conditions along with the Misshielle> binary. Section 2, clause c does not override. Does not Misshielle> infringe Section 6 either. What is the problem?
You may find this one fine, but that doesn't make it fly, sorry. Requiring people to redistribute the license notice in all documentation included with the binaries is an additional restriction which is not found in the GPL. So a very clear no cannot do.
This is also known as the BSD 'advertisement' clause which was the main reason we could never use BSD code in the old days. Berkeley has since updated their license and removed this clause from it, however the license still poses a problem since it doesn't include an explicit patent license grant, but thats a completely different issue.
Cheers,
Jes
Quoted 5 lines · Jes Sorensen
This is also known as the BSD 'advertisement' clause which was the main reason we could never use BSD code in the old days. Berkeley has since updated their license and removed this clause from it, however the license still poses a problem since it doesn't include an explicit patent license grant, but thats a completely different issue.
No, the advertising clause was something different: "All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."
The clause you refer to, "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", still remains in the modified BSD license which everyone (except some original thinkers on this thread) agrees to be GPL-compatible.
--Bruce Fields
Hi
Quoted 7 lines
This is also known as the BSD 'advertisement' clause which was the main reason we could never use BSD code in the old days. Berkeley has since updated their license and removed this clause from it, however the license still poses a problem since it doesn't include an explicit patent license grant, but thats a completely different issue.
No, the advertising clause is not present in the license in question. Following is the original BSD license, which includes the advertising clause. It is clause #3.
====
Copyright (c) 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
This software was developed by the Computer Systems Engineering group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory under DARPA contract BG 91-66 and contributed to Berkeley.
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
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. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. 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.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS 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 REGENTS 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.
====
Quoted 3 lines
Cheers,
Jes
Signature · 1 line
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Quoted 4 lines · On 17-Jan-2004 David Schwartz wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
Sorry, that's an "additional restriction" not permitted under the GPL.
These are in fact the points I wished your opinion about... Actually these are requirements (like others said), not use restrictions. btw, IANAL and IP rights are a minefield. Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, but it also contains the binary firmwares which I can't rewrite. That's why I asked you about the license.
It's likely Echoaudio will change the license in the next release to a dual GPL/custom license, so this will be no more an issue.
Thanks for you answers.
--
Giuliano.
Quoted 11 lines · On 17-Jan-2004 David Schwartz wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
Sorry, that's an "additional restriction" not permitted under the GPL.
These are in fact the points I wished your opinion about... Actually these are requirements (like others said), not use restrictions.
There is no difference. Every requirement can be rephrased as an equivalent
restriction. The requirement that you maintain the terms is the same as a restriction against removing them.
Quoted 1 line
btw, IANAL and IP rights are a minefield.
Definitely.
Quoted 3 lines
Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, but it also contains the binary firmwares which I can't rewrite. That's why I asked you about the license.
Then you have another problem. You can't place something under the GPL if
you don't have the source code to it. How can you offer the source code to others if you don't have it? (Though my opinion seems to differ from the mainstream on this point. It is my opinion that you must possess the source code to any object code you wish to GPL.)
Quoted 2 lines
It's likely Echoaudio will change the license in the next release to a dual GPL/custom license, so this will be no more an issue.
Glad to hear that.
Quoted 1 line
Thanks for you answers.
Of course, you shouldn't rely upon them.
DS
Quoted 7 lines · David Schwartz
Quoted 4 lines
Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, but it also contains the binary firmwares which I can't rewrite. That's why I asked you about the license.
Then you have another problem. You can't place something under the GPL if
you don't have the source code to it.
This issue was raised on the list a few months ago. Someone's opinion was that the firmware is not executed by the same processor that runs Linux, thus it's data, not code. Uploading a firmware is like printing an image on the screen. Anyway I can upload the firmware from userspace. On most (but not all) cards I only need the firmware at startup, so I also save memory. Some cards also have an ASIC which must be loaded. That data is not code because it's not executed.
--
Giuliano.
Quoted 7 lines · David Schwartz
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, but it also contains the binary firmwares which I can't rewrite. That's why I asked you about the license.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Then you have another problem. You can't place something
under the GPL if
you don't have the source code to it.This issue was raised on the list a few months ago. Someone's opinion was that the firmware is not executed by the same processor that runs Linux, thus it's data, not code.
The GPL makes no distinctions about what processor runs things, nor does it
make distinctions between data and code.
Quoted 2 lines
Uploading a firmware is like printing an image
on the screen.
So what difference is that supposed to make? Quoting the GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
Notice it doesn't say that source code only exists for executables. It
simply clarifies what it means by "source code" by explaining what it means with respect to executables. If you release a package under the GPL that includes, for example, a JPG image, you would have to give the "preferred from of [that] work for making modification to it" to any user who requested it (or otherwise comply with the GPL requirements).
Quoted 4 lines
Anyway I can upload the firmware from userspace. On most (but not all) cards I only need the firmware at startup, so I also save memory. Some cards also have an ASIC which must be loaded. That data is not code because it's not executed.
Why does it matter whether it's data or code? The GPL doesn't care whether
a work is data or code, it just requires that you provide to a suitably qualified requester the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". Even data has a "preferred form". Raw versus processed is analogous to source versus object.
I think the firmware loader can be a license boundary. Just don't put any
GPL notices in the files that contain the firmware as data. While this isn't 'mere aggregation', the integration is across an API that should be acceptable as a license boundary.
DS
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Giuliano" == Giuliano Pochini <[email protected]> writes:
Giuliano> These are in fact the points I wished your opinion about... Giuliano> Actually these are requirements (like others said), not use Giuliano> restrictions. btw, IANAL and IP rights are a minefield. Giuliano> Since their code is C++ I already rewote everything in C, Giuliano> but it also contains the binary firmwares which I can't Giuliano> rewrite. That's why I asked you about the license. It's Giuliano> likely Echoaudio will change the license in the next release Giuliano> to a dual GPL/custom license, so this will be no more an Giuliano> issue.
That sounds great, getting rid of the C++ components is a major step ;-)
Even if the firmware license doesn't change, you still have the option to use the hotplug firmware loader in 2.6.
Cheers,
Jes
Quoted 2 lines · Giuliano Pochini
Is it possile to include in the kernel distro some code with this BSD-style license ?
ah, header and buttom are the same as the XFree license, the restrictions are from the BSD license. (Some very small differences like "deal with" / "deal in" and "disclaimers" vs. "disclaimer".) Those two licenses are well known to be free, open source and GPL compatible.
So the license is perfectly fine, you can use this code in the linux kernel.
I used "wdiff" to compare to this license text to the BSD and XFree license. That is a very nice tool suited for this task. In case you have any influence on licensing: It is a lot better to use some well known and accepted license, than writing your own, even if like in this case, the license is completely build from two existing licenses which makes the analysis very easy.
Regards, Andreas