Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>]

You are still required to have the Copyright notice:
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html

Here is the license template:

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    * 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.
    * Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its 
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from 
this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS 
IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED 
TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A 
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER 
OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR 
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF 
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING 
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS 
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Thats it.

The advertising clause has nothing to do with Microsoft not putting the 
copyright notice somewhere in the source and manuals and other 
distributed documentation. The URL has a link explaining exactly what 
claus was rescinded and what it actually said.

Thats what I don't like about this whole SCO thing: too much heresay and 
no critical thinking.

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:

> -On [20031123 21:02], Gary Thorpe (gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> > But I was talking about _Microsoft_ not SCO, although its lucky for
> > them that many open source advocates are selectively outraged.
>
> So was Matt, remember that the UCB nullified the advertising clause in
> their BSDL revision a year or two ago (perhaps longer already).

Microsoft would still be violating the license if they don't have that 
copyright notice.