[1031] in athena10
Re: 4-clause BSD license for "rs" and "lam"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Hudson)
Sat Jan 31 21:32:56 2009
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
To: Tim Abbott <tabbott@mit.edu>
Cc: debathena@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0901311943450.2057@vinegar-pot.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:31:56 -0500
Message-Id: <1233455516.6528.91.camel@ray>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Athena jot was imported from NetBSD at some point. I've told the Debian
person that we're not a real upstream for it, and I believe his answer
was basically "I know, and I'm not going to do anything about it."
On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 20:10 -0500, Tim Abbott wrote:
> 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
> >
