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 <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073