[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PPPd licensing
Pardon me for asking for some clarification here, but where Thorsten
> Are #3 and #4 really necessary? I'm just asking because Berkeley
> hasn't them any longer. This won't be a problem though.
Did he mean the UC Berkeley license? Has the situation changed since
1999? Or did he mean the MIT license?
CMU License terms 3 & 4 from Karen Lukas, via Walter C Wong:
> > * 3. The name "Carnegie Mellon University" must not be used to
> > * endorse or promote products derived from this software without
> > * prior written permission. For permission or any legal
> > * details, please contact
> > * Office of Technology Transfer
> > * Carnegie Mellon University
> > * 5000 Forbes Avenue
> > * Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
> > * (412) 268-4387, fax: (412) 268-7395
> > * firstname.lastname@example.org
> > *
> > * 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
> > * acknowledgment:
> > * "This product includes software developed by Computing Services
> > * at Carnegie Mellon University (http://www.cmu.edu/computing/)."
I understand that the advertisement clause has been struck from the
official version from Berkeley. (And #4 above looks a lot easier to deal
with than an advertisement clause.) But I am pretty sure the no
endorsement clause remains:
Comparing with the MIT license:
Is the opensource site out of date?
Joel Rees <email@example.com>