* Kurt D. Zeilenga (Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) wrote:
> This, by itself, is not a good reason once you come to the
> realization that the same issues which apply to OpenSSL
> software likely applies to OpenLDAP Software (and to Cyrus
> SASL and to ...). I suggest you and your lawyer read the
> complete OpenLDAP Software copyright notice.
The following is a response to this from Steve Langasek
<vorlon@netexpress.net> copied verbatim from the debian-legal mailing
list (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/):
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 01:30:20PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Comments? I didn't think the OpenLDAP license had the same restrictions
> the OpenSSL one did...?
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html:
GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses
[...]
The OpenLDAP License, Version 2.7.
This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license that is
compatible with the GNU GPL.
[Upstream doesn't know this? AIUI, Version 2.7 of the license was
written with GPL compatibility in mind, in response to input from the
FSF.]
[...]
GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses
[...]
The original BSD license.
(Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in
the "UCB/LBL" section.) This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft
free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD
advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not
render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems,
including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you
write. If you want to use a simple, permissive non-copyleft free
software license, it is much better to use the modified BSD license
or the X11 license. However, there is no reason not to use programs
that have been released under the original BSD license.
The OpenSSL license is GPL-incompatible because it contains an
"obnoxious advertising clause" equivalent to that of the original BSD
license.
The Cyrus SASL license is also a permissive non-copyleft license; it
does not contain an advertising clause, but instead requires that
* 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/)."
*
which is equivalent to the GPL's requirement
"that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty"
.
Not that I'm surprised they want us to provide the patch, in any case.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
---------------------------------------------------------------
I omitted the repost of the original message which followed.
Stephen
Attachment:
pgphOjMKf9DLv.pgp
Description: PGP signature