[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
Glaser says

> 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
> > *      tech-transfer@andrew.cmu.edu
> > *
> > * 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:

    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html

Comparing with the MIT license:

    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html

Is the opensource site out of date? 


-- 
Joel Rees <joel@alpsgiken.gr.jp>