Re: [2.6] The List, pass #2

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 01:31:44AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 21:34, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Care to comment on why it is not GPL compatible? Given that they are
> > interested in merging their code into the standard kernel ASAP, I know
> > that they'd be interested in correcting any incompatibilities.
> 
> The 3 clause BSD though very much a completely free/open license has
> requirements conflicting with the GPL 
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/bsd.html

The "original BSD license" listed on that page actually has 4 numbered
clauses, number 3 (the "advertising clause") being the conflicting one.
The "modified BSD license", which they link to on the same page, has 3
clauses and *is* GPL compatible.  As far as I can tell, the license we are
using at CITI is nearly word-for-word the "modified BSD license", and is
GPL compatible.

--Bruce Fields