This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [v3] Re: libstdc++ license
>>>>> "Loren" == Loren James Rittle <email@example.com> writes:
> Thus, I have no problem with Phil's patch. However, I think the FSF
> might. If you read the existing copyright closely, you will note that
> it contains a form of the so-called "advertising clause".
No, it doesn't. The advertising clause was
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors."
The HP/SGI STL licenses don't say anything about advertising. They are a
straightforward adaptation of the X license, of which www.gnu.org says:
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
compatible with the GNU GPL.
> The upshot is that I think an FSF copyright lawyer should be consulted
> before Phil's patch is re-applied.
RMS has already signed off on the license being OK for inclusion in a GNU
> We should also consider (or let an FSF lawyer consider) whether it is our
> duty to inform users of libstdc++ that they must include the HP and SGI
> copyright statements in any documentation they ship with a system built
> against the STL we include in libstdc++. I.e. unless the FSF got special
> permission that those clauses don't apply to our end-users, we can't
> remove that burdon for the users of the library.
I agree that this would be necessary for users of a program built with
library code with the actual BSD license, but I don't think it is for the
STL license. "supporting documentation" seems to me to refer to
documentation for the library itself. But perhaps, as you say, that is a
matter for an FSF lawyer to consider.
FWIW, I'm still somewhat dubious about the change itself. I'd rather keep
open the option of exchanging code with SGI. But my vote doesn't count for