[1030] in athena10
Re: 4-clause BSD license for "rs" and "lam"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Abbott)
Sat Jan 31 20:11:24 2009
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:10:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Abbott <tabbott@MIT.EDU>
To: debathena@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0901241949000.29707@vinegar-pot.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0901311943450.2057@vinegar-pot.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
According to
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
We should just delete clause 3.
Apparently Debian's "athena-jot" package hasn't done this, but they got it
from us, so it's not particularly surprising.
Is Athena jot different from BSD jot? If not, I guess I should tell
Debian to use a BSD source as their upstream. If we're still the upstream
for athena-jot, perhaps we should put it in Athena 10 version control,
apply these changes to it as well, and let the Debian athena-jot
maintainer know where it is.
-Tim Abbott
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Tim Abbott wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While fixing up the copyright files for all the packages, I noticed that "rs"
> and "lam" are listed as having a 4-clause BSD license. This is problematic,
> both because it's a bad license in general, and in particular because we'd
> certainly not be in compliance with their advertising clause when we
> advertise Debathena or Athena 10 without mentioning them.
>
> Since it looks like it's Berkeley's software, it is quite likely that their
> general amnesty for deleting the problematic advertising clause applies.
> Someone should confirm this and commit a change updating our debian/copyright
> files for those packages appropriately.
>
> -Tim Abbott
>
