On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Henry B. Hotz wrote:

> At 8:29 PM -0600 2/15/03, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> >On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> >  > Granted it's more up-to-date, but I thought there was license problem
> >>  with the sourceforge stuff.  The original was released with a
> >>  copyright that didn't allow the GPL modification to the copyright or
> >>  something?
> >>
> >>  Is the sourceforge stuff legal?
> >
> >What??? Can you supply a URI? The original UMich license is reproduced
> >in the current code, and I don't see anything like that in there. It's
> >just a classic BSD license, with a no-advertising clause.
>
> I'm just going by a fuzzy memory of some discussions on this very
> list a couple of years ago or more.
>
> The BSD copyright license says you can't modify the copyright.  The
> GPL says you have to modify the copyright to force the GPL.
> Conflict.  That's why the gcc code is carefully segregated from the
> kernel code in NetBSD.

That's not quite it. All the BSD License says, is that you have to
include the copyright. It doesn't say anything about not adding
another. The issue is this, from the GPL:

    You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
    exercise of the rights granted herein.

vs. the advertising clause. This means that projects with BSD license
plus advertising clause can't simply add the GPL to their project in
order to take the GPL deriviate project's changes back. It mainly only
bothers the GPL people, because it checks the spread of their virus.

For netatalk, it's a non-issue, because UMich has abandonded the
original code base. If they ever wanted to start it back up, they
could accept the sourceforge changes plus GPL, and even distribute
their changes under a BSD license minus advertising clause. That's
their problem, not ours. There's certainly nothing illegal about
slapping a GPL license on BSD licensed code and making changes.

Frederick