Re: [avr-libc-dev] Licensing issue

[Joerg Wunsch]

As address@hidden wrote:

> The problem is not really the copyrights, I think that all the
> developers deserve to be acknowledged for all the great things that
> they have done. The problem is the inconsistency in the licenses.

They are not as inconsistent as you might think.  They are all based
on the BSD license, with the original clause 3 (``All adertising
materials ... must display..'') deleted.

Later on, some of the developers agreed to also omit the former clause
4 ([the name of the developer(s)] ``may [not] be used to endorse or
promote products...'').  Still, even in these cases, it's fully in
compliance with the requirements of the license to still have this
clause added in a general license note when redistributing it, even
though these files have a less restrictive license.

My example code is distributed under Poul-Henning Kamp's beer-ware
license.  Albeit this might at first look like a joke, it's really
meant serious: it's what Poul-Henning came up for a least restrictive
license that would still protect his ownership of the software, while
keeping the actual license terms at the bare minimum.  If anyone feels
uncomfortable with it but wants to redistribute code based on these
examples, I'll happily agree to redistribute it based on the
(2-clause) BSD-style license instead of the beer-ware license.

-- 
J"org Wunsch                                           Unix support engineer
address@hidden        http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/