| Message ID | 20190314131049.23175-2-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | slirp: clarify license of slirp as BSD-3 | expand |
On 3/14/19 8:10 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > According to commit 2f5f89963186d42a7ded253bc6cf5b32abb45cec ("Remove > the advertising clause from the slirp license"), Danny Gasparovski > gave permission to license slirp code under 3-clause BSD license: > > Subject: RE: Slirp license > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:51:00 +1100 > From: "Gasparovski, Daniel" <Daniel.Gasparovski@ato.gov.au> > To: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana@redhat.com> > > I have no objection to having Slirp code in QEMU be licensed under > the 3-clause BSD license. > > slirp/COPYRIGHT's initial version in 2004 (commit 5fafdf24) listed > only 3 clauses BUT used the poisonous advertising clause for clause 3 > which is the controversial clause of non-free 4-clause (that is, it > appears that the BSD-4 license was copied, and then the WRONG clause > was deleted, when creating COPYRIGHT. Perhaps explained as an easy > mistake to make since 3-clause was created by removing clause 3 of the > 4-clause, where you sometimes see the three-clause version with > clauses 1, 2, 4; but more commonly see a renumbered version with > clauses 1, 2, 3 to close the gap. If you pay attention only to clause > numbers instead of content, it can be easy to confuse which clause to > delete to go from 4-clause to 3-clause). > > Commit 2f5f89963 removed the poisonous wrong clause on > the grounds of moving from 4-clause to 3-clause; but did not add the > missing clause, which makes it LOOK like the 2-clause version. But I > think we have a decent enough trail showing the intent for 3-clause. > > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > --- > slirp/COPYRIGHT | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > > diff --git a/slirp/COPYRIGHT b/slirp/COPYRIGHT > index 1bc83d497e..9863ea31cb 100644 > --- a/slirp/COPYRIGHT > +++ b/slirp/COPYRIGHT > @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ The copyright terms and conditions: > 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 copyright holder nor the names of its > + contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived > + from this software without specific prior written permission. Matches the text on both: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause (well, those two pages differ on whether "All rights reserved" is part of the boilerplate, but that's a different battle that doesn't affect this cleanup) > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, > INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY >
On 14/03/2019 14.34, Eric Blake wrote: > On 3/14/19 8:10 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote: >> According to commit 2f5f89963186d42a7ded253bc6cf5b32abb45cec ("Remove >> the advertising clause from the slirp license"), Danny Gasparovski >> gave permission to license slirp code under 3-clause BSD license: >> >> Subject: RE: Slirp license >> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:51:00 +1100 >> From: "Gasparovski, Daniel" <Daniel.Gasparovski@ato.gov.au> >> To: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana@redhat.com> >> >> I have no objection to having Slirp code in QEMU be licensed under >> the 3-clause BSD license. >> >> slirp/COPYRIGHT's initial version in 2004 (commit 5fafdf24) listed >> only 3 clauses BUT used the poisonous advertising clause for clause 3 >> which is the controversial clause of non-free 4-clause (that is, it >> appears that the BSD-4 license was copied, and then the WRONG clause >> was deleted, when creating COPYRIGHT. When you look at the files in the original slirp repository with: cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@a.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/slirp co -P slirp-1.0 ... you can see that the file already looked like this there. So I guess the statement from Danny Gasparovski was rather about the copyright remarks in the source files. But for consistency with the source files, the missing clause should be added to this COPYRIGHT file here, too, so I think the patch is the right thing to do, thus: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> + 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its >> + contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived >> + from this software without specific prior written permission. > > Matches the text on both: > https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html > https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause > > (well, those two pages differ on whether "All rights reserved" is part > of the boilerplate, but that's a different battle that doesn't affect > this cleanup) "All rights reserved" is not needed anymore since the year 2000, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved#Obsolescence Thomas
diff --git a/slirp/COPYRIGHT b/slirp/COPYRIGHT index 1bc83d497e..9863ea31cb 100644 --- a/slirp/COPYRIGHT +++ b/slirp/COPYRIGHT @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ The copyright terms and conditions: 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 copyright holder nor the names of its + contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived + from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
According to commit 2f5f89963186d42a7ded253bc6cf5b32abb45cec ("Remove the advertising clause from the slirp license"), Danny Gasparovski gave permission to license slirp code under 3-clause BSD license: Subject: RE: Slirp license Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:51:00 +1100 From: "Gasparovski, Daniel" <Daniel.Gasparovski@ato.gov.au> To: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana@redhat.com> I have no objection to having Slirp code in QEMU be licensed under the 3-clause BSD license. slirp/COPYRIGHT's initial version in 2004 (commit 5fafdf24) listed only 3 clauses BUT used the poisonous advertising clause for clause 3 which is the controversial clause of non-free 4-clause (that is, it appears that the BSD-4 license was copied, and then the WRONG clause was deleted, when creating COPYRIGHT. Perhaps explained as an easy mistake to make since 3-clause was created by removing clause 3 of the 4-clause, where you sometimes see the three-clause version with clauses 1, 2, 4; but more commonly see a renumbered version with clauses 1, 2, 3 to close the gap. If you pay attention only to clause numbers instead of content, it can be easy to confuse which clause to delete to go from 4-clause to 3-clause). Commit 2f5f89963 removed the poisonous wrong clause on the grounds of moving from 4-clause to 3-clause; but did not add the missing clause, which makes it LOOK like the 2-clause version. But I think we have a decent enough trail showing the intent for 3-clause. Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> --- slirp/COPYRIGHT | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)