BSD copyright clause

[Steve Grubb]

Hello,

A GPL'ed project includes some 3 clause BSD licensed files. They include this 
line:

 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Is the term "binary form" referring to the tarball or a compiled application 
that uses the file? If it is meant to refer to a compiled app, how do people 
typically meet this? Just curious....

Thanks,
-Steve

[Tom Callaway]

On 02/22/2010 01:31 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  A GPL'ed project includes some 3 clause BSD licensed files. They include this 
>  line:
>  
>   * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>   *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>   *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>  
>  Is the term "binary form" referring to the tarball or a compiled application 
>  that uses the file? If it is meant to refer to a compiled app, how do people 
>  typically meet this? Just curious.... 
I'm sure you'd get several interpretations from several different
lawyers on this question, but generally, I would interpret it like this:

* When you distribute compiled versions of the code under this license,
you also need to distribute a copy of the license itself, either in the
bundled documentation or in some other format. Since Fedora always
distributes the source code along with the binaries within the greater
Fedora distribution, and since the source code will contain this notice,
that counts as meeting that requirement.

If you disagree with that assessment, you should check the documentation
to be sure that:
 * It is included in the binary RPM along with any binaries containing
   such licensed code
 * The documentation includes a full copy of the BSD license (with
   warranty)
 * If there is no existant documentation, you should simply include a
   full copy of the BSD license as %doc in the binary package along
   with any binaries which contain such licensed code.

But again, IMHO, you don't need to take those steps in Fedora, as the
SRPM distribution meets the requirement.

To the best of my knowledge, no copyright holder has ever asked for us
to do anything above and beyond the SRPM redistribution to comply with
the BSD license.

~spot

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:31:45PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  A GPL'ed project includes some 3 clause BSD licensed files. They include this 
>  line:
>  
>   * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>   *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>   *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>  
>  Is the term "binary form" referring to the tarball or a compiled application 
>  that uses the file? If it is meant to refer to a compiled app, how do people 
>  typically meet this? Just curious.... 
My understanding is that "redistribution in binary form" covers the
total blob of material customarily used to redistribute to users in a
form they can execute.  So it would cover in our case a binary RPM
package, meaning you can include the license in the %{_docdir}.
That's what our binary RPMs are required to do IIRC.
 
-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com