[parisc-linux] [[email protected]: licencing-question... ?]

The mailing list is still grossly misbehaving, but it seems to only do so for Helge's mail. I'm dealing with some mailing list issues today, so I'll look at this as well. In the meantime, here's Helge's mail:

-Phil

Hi !

Since my commits do not show on the cvs-parisc-list......

I committed again some changes (Phillip: I only changed some small things, so that we could compile the source again; please ignore all my changes in irq.c !), but my main-question is:

Are we/Am I allowed to use code from the OSF-parisc-port ??? The license from this port is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
/*
* Copyright 1996 1995 by Open Software Foundation, Inc.
* All Rights Reserved
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
* its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
* provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
* that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
* supporting documentation.
*
* OSF DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE
* INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
* FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
*
* IN NO EVENT SHALL OSF BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR
* CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
* LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
* NEGLIGENCE, OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
* WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/
/*
* Copyright (c) 1990,1991,1994 The University of Utah and
* the Computer Systems Laboratory (CSL). All rights reserved. *
* THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH AND CSL PROVIDE THIS SOFTWARE IN ITS "AS IS"
* CONDITION, AND DISCLAIM ANY LIABILITY OF ANY KIND FOR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM ITS USE.
*
* CSL requests users of this software to return to [email protected] any
* improvements that they make and grant CSL redistribution rights. *
*/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Can we use the code, is it OK to accept this license, or shall we rewrite all ????

Thanks,
Helge.

This is the only bit to worry about. I _think_ it's okay (ie this isn't the infamous `advertising clause -- i think that's the one which talks about being mentioned on the advertising for your product). At any rate, the X11 licence which is generally reckoned GPL-subsumable contains:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

The sticking point could be the copyright & permissions having to appear in the supporting documentation. What would be the supporting documentation if, say, Red Hat sold Red Hat 8.0 for the PA-RISC? Would the user documentation have to include the copyright notice?

[I notice that it doesn't say `or substantial portions', so maybe just
stealing large quantities of it and not including the permission notice in the documentation would be okay, as long as you don't use all of it. This will almost certainly annoy people though.]

that's fine, the GPL does that too.

ditto.

ditto

`requests' is not legally binding, so that's fine.

Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
"Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of
specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a
painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N Stephenson

The copyright in code isnt a problem, in supporting docs can be an issue.

What is documentation. Is the web site documentation etc etc..

The easiest thing is to get the Utah folks to add "Nothing in this license that is shown to be a restriction within the meaning of the GNU public license shall hold when the code is distributed under the terms of the GNU public license" or similar.