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

Gunnar Roth gunnar.roth at gmx.de
Sat Feb 28 12:23:10 CET 2015

> 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?


More information about the Development mailing list