Re: Ancient BSD's Licensing & Trademarks when porting and/or forking V7 and/ or 2.x - 4.x BSD's

[Martin <martin.kelly4000%gmail.com@localhost>]

Yeah Thanks.

I was having a look at some of the source code and you are right Jeremy. The code licencing for most BSD's before 4.4BSD or non UNIX/32V and Versions 1-7 of Unix is really mixed and unclear as to the licence. Which is sad to some degree and makes it a nightmare. Though i have always gone on the assumption the pdp-11 16-bit BSD's (aka 2.11BSD) were under a 4-clause BSD style licence but it hasn't really been clear cut, a large reason why i posted this. So i think in some ways it would provide a lot of benefit and be interesting to find out just for curiosity if anything

Martin

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:55 PM, John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost> wrote:

On Feb 10,  4:41am, Martin wrote:
}
} Well it all honesty 3BSD was just an example that came to my head. I am
} actually looking at 2.11BSD mostly.
} I understand the caldera licence is a bsd-style licence which correct me if
} I'm wrong includes 2.11BSD?
} So what you are saying is i could create a fork/ continuation of the
} 2.11BSD under for example 2.11BSD-Prismatic?
} What is the deal with licencing for example with 4.3BSD-Quasijarus have
} they just kept the original licence or have they been able to place their
} fork of 4.3BSD-Tahoe under current BSD equivalent licence?
} Sounds like a stupid question but I would prefer to if possible Licence it
} the 3-clause BSD, as that is the license I will be using for any new code.

     I meant to respond to your first note.  The bottom line is
that if you fork something, the original licence goes with the
code.  You absolutely can NOT change a licence under any circumstances.
Only the original copyright holder can change the licence.  If the
original copyright holder has given permission to use a different
licence then you may do so, but only then.

}-- End of excerpt from Martin