Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/12/04/02:56:13
Charles Wilson wrote:
> Is it legal to compile / distribute software that is licensed using
> the BSD w/advert clause, if that software is linked with
> cygwin1.dll? According to the FSF, BSD-w/advert is incompatible
> with the GPL.
A few points
1. The modified BSD (BSD no advert) is fully compatible with the
unmodified GPL, according to the FSF.
2. On July 22 1999, the Director of the Office of Technology Licensing
at the University of California officially *recinded* the advert clause
appearing on BSD Unix files. He stated that it was "hereby deleted in
its entirety". (see www.opensource.org) So, files that were originally
part of UCB's BSD Unix, even if they STILL carry the advert clause, are
officially licensed under the BSD no advert license now, and are fully
compatible with the unmodified GPL.
3. Cygwin is distributed under a modified GPL, that allows linking with
software that may otherwise be incompatible with the GPL, IF the (CPL
incompatible) license is an approved "open source" license. However,
www.opensource.org doesn't specify whether the old BSD+advert license is
"open source" It only addresses the new BSD-no-advert license.
4. There exist some packages that are NOT part of the UCB BSD distro yet
are licensed with the old BSD license, or some non-UCB variant of it
(There's even a "Christian Software Public License" that requires "John
3:16" to appear on all marketing material...). These REMAIN
incompatible with the unmodified GPL, regarless of whatever the Director
of UCal's OTL says. However, it's not clear whether they are officially
"open source", and may thus be linked with cygwin (under its modified GPL).
It's paragraph #4 that I'm asking about. Basically, does the old BSD
license satisfy the "open source" exception of cygwin's license?
- Raw text -