<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:AGaramond-Regular;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Well, here’s
one lawyer that will quote another (who does post on this list with some
regularity):<br>
<br>
“</span></font><font face=AGaramond-Regular><span style='font-family:
AGaramond-Regular'>The BSD license even allows software to be taken from that public
commons and used in proprietary applications. There is no obligation for the
licensee to return anything to the commons. But despite the absence of such an
obligation, the BSD “gift of freedom” is being repaid over and over
by companies<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=3
face=AGaramond-Regular><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:AGaramond-Regular'>and
individuals who see more value to them in giving software away under an
academic license than in keeping it private.</span></font><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><a
href="http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch05.pdf">http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch05.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I’m curious as to what you mean by the
“permission grant” that is required to be included on every copy of
the source code. Do you mean the statement that “</span></font><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial;color:navy'>Redistributions of source code must retain … this list
of conditions”? Perhaps you can explain how that constitutes a “permission
grant” (or what a “permission grant” is under copyright law).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Chris Travers
[mailto:chris.travers@gmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, September 24, 2007
3:31 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> License Discuss<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: For Approval:
Microsoft Permissive License</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=gmailquote><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>On 9/24/07, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Wilson,
Andrew</span></b> <<a href="mailto:andrew.wilson@intel.com">andrew.wilson@intel.com</a>>
wrote:</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
If you are trying to convince people that your reading of BSD is<br>
not extreme, citing Theo is perhaps not the best place to begin.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
My main point is that the "license applies to all source code recipients
for our copyrights" interpretation is not at all uncommon. Instead,
I believe it is your opinion which is extreme (based on perhaps deliberate
misinterpretations by people like RMS). Furthermore, though IANAL, I did
note that the few lawyers who have addressed this question on this list have
given answers which back my argument here that the license always follows the
copyrighted element, and that it is a matter of what you can safely extract
rather than what license is wrapped around the code. <br>
<br>
So far, I have not found any open source community project (single vendor
reference implementations don't count, so that rules out things like Intel's
ISCSI Reference Implementation) which interpret the license the way you do. <br>
<br>
Since one of my projects depends on PostgreSQL and is under GPL 2+, I contacted
their core team so that I would be better aware of any license conflicts, real
or perceived. They expressed concern that permission removal under
the GPL might violate the license, but suggested that this wasn't their problem
(IMO they are probably right on both counts). <br>
<br>
To paraphrase the PostgreSQL core team: their position is that commercial
variants amount to enforcing the new copyrights that the vendor adds and does
not involve any sublicensing of the source code under the BSD license itself. <br>
<br>
This is why the permission grant is required to be included on every copy of
the source code. Again, this does not provide any obstacle to enforcing
one's own copyrights in arbitrary ways. My suggestion is that you find
major BSD-licensed community projects (not single-vendor reference
implementations) which will agree that wrapping their code in the GPL without
adding any copyrighted elements is allowed. <br>
<br>
In short, I don't think your viewpoint is in line with how most projects which
use the license read it.<br>
<br>
Best Wishes,<br>
Chris Travers<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>