[Development] license question, bds 4 clause license text in qtbase\src\corelib\tools\qdatetime.cpp qt5.4.1 found

[Gunnar Roth]

> Am 28.02.2015 um 08:10 schrieb Sune Vuorela <nospam at vuorela.dk>:
> 
>> Well https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html says
>> Original BSD license (#OriginalBSD)
>> This license is also sometimes called the “4-clause BSD license”.
>> 
>> This is a lax, 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 nonfree. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
>> 
>> but ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change says
>> Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
>> include the acknowledgement within advertising materials.  Accordingly, the
>> foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
>> in its entirety.
>> 
>> But does the week number code fall under the category  BSD Unix files ?
>> 
>> So who is right her? GNU.org, Thiago ?  I am not a lawyer( thank god :-) ) or judge to decide this.
> 
> Everybody is right. 4-clause-BSD is incompatible with BSD, but as you
> write yourself, the university of california has removed the obnoxious
> clause from all their software, so it is just 3-clause licensed, even if
> you have a old copy of it.
> 
 UC writes  BSD Unix files not about general source code.
And why does gnu,org not update their website,but till insists on  incompatibility with the GNU GPL?

Regards,
Gunnar