License headers in argus and argus-clients sources

[Carter Bullard]

Then we're good, as all of the files in question I believe are UCB.  Basically, if tcpdump files are good to go, then argus files should also be good to go.  I'll go through it today to see if there is anything outside this condition.

Carter

Carter Bullard, QoSient, LLC
150 E. 57th Street Suite 12D
New York, New York 10022
+1 212 588-9133 Phone
+1 212 588-9134 Fax

On Apr 12, 2012, at 12:54 PM, "Ciaran Farrell" <cfarrell at suse.com> wrote:

> The problem is the 'advertising clause' (typically the 4th clause in the so called BSD 4 Clause license). The FSF has
> held the position for many years that the 'advertising clause' is incompatible with the GPL (2 and 3). In 1999 the
> University of California (Berkeley) ("UCB") retroactively struck the 4th clause (advertising) out of all software for
> which they (the deans) held the copyright. Thus, if you come across BSD 4 Clause licensed software for which the
> copyright holder is UCB, you can proceed to use it as if it were BSD 3 Clause licensed. The same, however, is not true
> for BSD 4 Clause licensed software from copyright holders other than UCB.
> 
> The FSF have a webpage where they detail the licenses which are GPL compatible and incompatible. The relevant entry for
> this BSD license is:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
> 
> The essential problem with having the BSD 4 Clause licensed files and the GPL-2.0 licensed files in the same component
> is that the GPL requires that all derived works be licensed under the GPL. It is certainly arguable that the compiled
> binary result of linking the BSD 4 Clause files with the rest of the GPL-2.0 files is a derived work of the GPL-2.0
> files. In fact, the FSF typically state exactly that. It is, however, not possible to license the resulting binary
> (derived work) under the GPL-2.0 as required by that license, because the advertising clause of the BSD 4 Clause license
> renders that license GPL incompatible.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Ciaran Farrell
> 
> 
> Ciaran Farrell
> Legal Counsel
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
> Maxfeldstrasse 5
> 90409 Nuremberg
> Germany
> 
> Tel: +49 911 74053 262
> 
>>>> Carter Bullard <carter at qosient.com> 04/12/12 6:28 PM >>>
> Many of the banners are from files used for convenience.  None are " unique " so I'm confident I can find GPL
> equivalents.
> 
> This has never been a problem before, so I'm curious if removal of these are critical ?  Releasing BSD licensed code
> under GPL should be legal, but not GPL under BSD ?
> 
> Carter
> 
> On Apr 12, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Jan Matějek <jmatejek at suse.com> wrote:
> 
>> hello,
>> 
>> Dne 12.4.2012 13:13, Carter Bullard napsal(a):
>>> Hey Jan,
>>> I've corrected the errant headers. Regarding the files that have BSD headers
>>> mentioned in the Novell bugzilla report you referenced:  I don't have a Novell
>>> account so I can't see the bugzilla reference that you included.  Could you list
>>> the files that need to be reviewed?  I'll make the appropriate changes today.
>> 
>> there is quite a lot of them, just grep for "advertising materials".
>> 
>> I'm not completely sure whether you can just remove those headers - if the files in question are really based on BSD
> 4-clause licensed code, it might be that you would have to rewrite/remove the code or relicense the rest of it. Or say
> that the license is "GPL with exception for some files" ... i don't know, IANAL. Perhaps it is possible to ignore/drop
> the advertising clause, Berkeley apparently allows that. Not sure about CMU though.
>> 
>> Of course, if all the code is pretty much yours anyway, it should not be a problem.
>> 
>> see:
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
>> for details
>> 
>> regards
>> Jan
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jan Matejek
>> package maintainer, SUSE Linux
> 
> 
>