
	Where results make sense

Topic: BSD licence

Related Topics

BSD and GPL licensing

Vorbis

Ogg Page

Ogg

Bitstream

	OpenBSD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Like the other open source BSDs and in contrast to most Linux distributions, the OpenBSD kernel and userland programs, such as the shell and common tools like cat and ps, are developed together in a single source repository.
		The project is led by Theo de Raadt from Calgary, Alberta, Canada and is released under a combination of licenses, primarily the BSD license and its variants.
		GPL licensed parts of the GNU toolset, bc [1], dc [2], nm [3] and size [4], were all replaced with BSD licensed equivalents.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Openbsd (5394 words)

	Other Free Software Licences
		BSD Licence: This famous licence is similar to the Apache licence.
		Use this licence if you are creating a software library that you do not want anyone to sell, but which you wish to make available for use by proprietary software vendors.
		Mozilla Public Licence (MPL): This licence is much the same as the NPL except that it does not allow the software creator to take private modifications made to the software by third parties.
	www.freeworldlicence.org /other_licences.shtml (552 words)

	BSD license article - BSD license license software UNIX Regents the University California University - What-Means.com (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		A notable example of such use is the use of BSD networking code in Microsoft products, or the use of numerous FreeBSD components in MacOS X.
		This was in fact the case with very early versions of BSD Unix itself, which included proprietary material from ATandT.
		BSD license article - BSD license definition - what means BSD license
	www.what-means.com /encyclopedia/BSD_License (500 words)

	BSD License Problem - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
		Most of them are equivalent except for details of wording, but the license used for BSD until 1999 had a special problem: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''.
		Instead of copying the BSD license from some released package--which might still have the old version of the license in it--please copy the license from X11.
		When you want to refer specifically to one of the BSD licenses, please always state which one: the ``original BSD license'' or the ``revised BSD license''.
	www.gnu.org /philosophy/bsd.html (904 words)

	Daemon News (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		This time it looks like a true BSD license, although there's a rather untypical clause: "[...] The contents of this package may not be placed under the GPL or any other licence which requires requires you to give up your rights.
		The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or derivative of this code cannot be changed.
		The nice thing about Open Source and BSD is that when your code is adopted into a larger distribution you get compatibility.
	bsdnews.com /view_story.php3?story_id=2167 (575 words)

	[No title]
		Licences: ========= The files in GemPC410/ are under GNU General Public Licence.
		The files in GemPC430/ are under a BSD-like licence (except main.c which is under GPL but is not needed to build the driver).
		That means that the GemPC 410 driver is under GNU General Public Licence, and that the GemPC 430 driver is the BSD-like licence or the GNU General Public Licence at your choice.
	ludovic.rousseau.free.fr /softwares/ifd-GemPC/README (1122 words)

	[forum] GPL-incompatible license
		I do not believe that any files in the client-side libraries are covered by the original BSD licence, although I have not made a thorough check for this.
		The goal of the XFree86 licence change is not to require special treatment, but only treatment equivalent to that given to other third party attributions.
		I don't believe that this is a large burden when compared to the requirement that all of the various licence notices be published.
	www.xfree86.org /pipermail/forum/2004-February/003998.html (606 words)

	Re: Do We Want KGI To Be The Standard? (Re: I'm back)
		Apart from the advertising condition (which I would suggest you don't use) the BSD licence is compatible with the GPL.
		The licence is a transaction giving the recipient the right to copy under certain conditions; it is associated with the transfer from one person to another, not with the software itself.
		Thus the BSD advertising condition and the GPL are incompatible, and programs derived from both are not distributable.
	www.ggi-project.org /mailinglist/jul98/761.html (1027 words)

	LWN: SCO's copyright letter
		I thought, that people, that take BSD code, then change the license and copyright, then release the code under different license should already know, that their actions are illegal.
		The reason you know that MS used BSD code is that MS complied with the BSD requirement that binaries reproduce the BSD licence, also.
		And a three-step BSD licence which is not GPL incompatible like the fraudsters in the letter claim.
	lwn.net /Articles/64052 (2555 words)

	bsd-license-history-in-a-nutsac (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Nadav Har'El's > "brief history of BSD UNIX" claims the first release was in 1978, > not 1977[2], as does Warren Toomey's timeline taken from "Life with > Unix" and "A Quarter Century of Unix"[3].
		Therefore, the first recorded use of the BSD license that I see is Net/1 [June 1989], and the first use of the BSD license for the whole distribution (rather than just the TCP stack and libraries) is Net/2 [June 1991].
		In his talks about BSD history, McKusick describes 1BSD as the outgrowth of a "50 patches" list that had been floating around the labs for a while.
	www.crackmonkey.org /~nick/mail/bsd-license-history-in-a-nutsac (387 words)

	A tale of two licences (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		But the licence also allows the the creators of Mckoi to work like the people at MySQL, offering a free licence to those who use it in a free context and an alternative, commercial, licence to those want to use it non-free ways, or those who want to get support, and so on.
		I came out with a better understanding of the licences and what their intended aims are, and it gave me a new respect for them.
		Granted, the apache license is more restrictive than the current BSD license, since it also says that you can't use the name apache for your product unless you get permission of the apache foundation.
	www.advogato.org /article/415.html (2156 words)

	www.bsd.org
		This page is intended to provide a variety of resources for users of the various commercial and freely-available bsd operating systems.
		It is in the midst of being revamped, and will probably be in such a state for quite a while yet.
		And here is a link to a comparison of the freely-available BSD operating systems.
	www.bsd.org (262 words)

	Lit Window Library: Lit Window Library Documentation
		The 'LWBASE' part is subject to the BSD licence.
		Licence (taken from http://www.wxwidgets.org/licence3.txt) : [BEGIN LICENCE 'LWWX'] wxWindows Library Licence, Version 3 ==================================== Copyright (C) 1998 Julian Smart, Robert Roebling [,...] Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this licence document, but changing it is not allowed.
		WXWINDOWS LIBRARY LICENCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public Licence as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the Licence, or (at your option) any later version.
	www.litwindow.com /lwl/doc/html/licence.html (628 words)

	The 4.4BSD Copyright
		The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Regents of the University of California.
		As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code files require that further distributions of products containing all or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors.
		Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety.
	www.freebsd.org /copyright/license.html (472 words)

	Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
		This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause.
		However, it is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license.
		It is advertised as a "compatible upgrade" for "licenses such as BSD and MIT", but it isn't; the revised BSD license and the MIT license are GPL-compatible, but the AFL is not.
	www.gnu.org /licenses/license-list.html (6201 words)

	cvs commit: fptools/libraries/base LICENSE (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		To comply with the BSD licence, it suffices to have Haddock output the copyright line for the module plus a hyperlink to the licence.
		However it's not quite clear what licence a particular module is under, though they're all similar.
		You have to know that it came from GHC and is thus under the GHC licence.
	www.haskell.org /pipermail/cvs-all/2002-June/020934.html (257 words)

	AJ's Unix Page
		BSD has a different licence (to GPL) that some professionals are more comfortable with.
		BSD was born in the University of California, Berkley (Berkly Software Design Inc.) aimed at education.
		BSD currently is not getting the publicity like Linux (they don't have a Torvalds or a penquin), it has a lot to offer and some (commercial people?) may prefer the licencing conditions to those of the GPL'd Linux.
	www.geocities.com /wpsmoke/unix.html (8623 words)

	OSNews.com
		The BSD utilities (just the core /bin ones) predate GNU only by a few years, and the more complex ones were developed after.
		BSD uses GCC, and that is most certainly a GNU project, and an important one.
		All that counts is the licencing terms, esp. for corporate projects that are required by law to respect these licences.
	www.osnews.com /comment.php?news_id=4709&limit=no (2057 words)

	Open Source Initiative OSI - The BSD License:Licensing
		Note: The advertising clause in the license appearing on BSD Unix files was officially rescinded by the Director of the Office of Technology Licensing of the University of California on July 22 1999.
		Note the new BSD license is thus equivalent to the
		In the original BSD license, both occurrences of the phrase "COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS" in the disclaimer read "REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS".
	www.opensource.org /licenses/bsd-license.php (331 words)

	Microsuck Forums - Bobtime Project (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		X Windows is a good example of what happens if you release stuff using the BSD licence or similar, you get nothing for writing it, but some other bugger can hijack your free code, change a few lines and then sell closed source versions of it for a shitload of money.
		I admit it, maybe BSD isn't the best choice, but it would be used if I was in charge, just beecause I think a clock should be used by anyone, whatever license they may use.
		A licence that just stipulates, say, that derivatives must be 'open source' (not that the BSD licence even does that) is open to interpretation and loopholes, hence the GPL only allows derivatives to use the same licence.
	www.fuckmicrosoft.com /forums/archive/index.php/t-8516.html (1872 words)

	The Old Joel on Software Forum - No realy, it is NOT the Open Source that is evil
		The GPL licence means it doesn't belong to everyone equally, it belongs to those that are able to satisfy GPL terms.
		BSD licence is essentially public domain but you have to acknowledge the original copyright holders, everyone can satisfy those terms.
		BSD on the other hand was just a way to release software into the public domain with a few restrictions (mainly to ensure credit is given to the authors).
	discuss.fogcreek.com /joelonsoftware?cmd=show&ixPost=60536 (5584 words)

	Linux Today - ZDNet: Caldera to introduce modified open-source license
		Grab the BSD codebase, embed explorer and some Win32 compatability Dlls (not a difficult problem when you have the windows source code), hide half of office in the system dlls just like on Windows, and bingo you have a new Unix based version of Windows incorporating every advance the BSD people have made.
		The periodic forking of the BSDs has allowed various project leads to have their go at it, so his brilliance would have to be much greater than any BSD head.
		BSD is a license for peace, GPL is a license for war.
	linuxtoday.com /news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-10-002-20-PS&tbovrmode=1 (11375 words)

	2004/freebsd-chat/20041107.freebsd-chat
		Oct 31 Ted Mittelstaedt RE: GPL vs BSD Licence 20.
		Oct 31 Miguel Mendez Re: GPL vs BSD Licence 22.
		Oct 31 misnagid Re: GPL vs BSD Licence 23.
	docs.freebsd.org /mail/archive/2004/freebsd-chat/20041107.freebsd-chat.html (507 words)

	Sean's Obsessions: Random thoughts on GPL and BSD
		I was reading an announcement about PostgreSQL releasing replication under the BSD licence.
		BSD: Use this code as you like, but give me credit.
		There's nothing wrong with GPL (though, given the choice, I prefer LGPL) However, the choice of a licence should be made carefully, after due consideration, and certainly not as a result of being pushed into it.
	ertw.com /blog/archives/random_thoughts_on_gpl_and_bsd-290803.html (675 words)

	FTP Daemons (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Licence: Has author's copyright, only, and no licence, and thus is distributable only directly by the copyright owner -- proprietary software.
		My understanding is that you have implied licence to retrieve the package directly from the author's site, to write/apply/distribute patches, to compile it, and to use it -- but not to redistribute it or works derived from it.
		Alternatively and at the recipient's option, this work may be used freely under the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 licence.
	linuxmafia.com /faq/Network_Other/ftp-daemons.html (1638 words)

	Gmane -- Mail To News And Back Again
		As a programmer, I can take BSD software (including stuff I have written for myself) and use it at work without worrying that my employer will get upset about their IP rights.
		So, both may be used to achieve > cooperation (2), but the BSD licence may be misused or abused > in ways the authors of the code did not intend to allow (or > perhaps specifically intended--it all depends on the specific > case).
		I suspect that personalities and differing goals are a major part, and that licences (except where they are very restrictive) are relatively minor.
	article.gmane.org /gmane.org.fsf.uk/2510 (1574 words)

	Gmane -- Mail To News And Back Again
		Both licenses allow forking, but I believe that the BSD licence makes it "less costly" to fork due to being a less restrictive licence.
		So, both may be used to achieve cooperation (2), but the BSD licence may be misused or abused in ways the authors of the code did not intend to allow (or perhaps specifically intended--it all depends on the specific case).
		My "default" licence would be the GPL unless there is a good reason not to do so, typically when working on an existing or companion project.
	article.gmane.org /gmane.org.fsf.uk/2506 (873 words)

	OpenSource.law
		Some open source licences, most famously the GPL, go further by mandating reciprocal licensing ; that is, where a work's copyright licence requires that users of the work continue to make it (and any derivatives in which it forms whole or part) freely-available to others under the terms of the parent licence.
		Mandating sharing-alike in a software licence is advantageous to the open source software community because it ensures that no one can build upon the community's code base without contributing their own modifications back to the public commons.
		In between the BSD and the GPL, in terms of its level of restrictiveness, is the Mozilla Public licence (MPL).
	fr.creativecommons.org /articles/canada.htm (6514 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)