Re: FW: gprof license

[cgd@broadcom.com]

At Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:52:00 +0000 (UTC), "Ian Lance Taylor" wrote:
> > Has UC ever given a blanket OK for replacing the old-style license
> > with the new style?
> 
> That is my understanding.  See
>     ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change

I knew about that, but that's different.  That's a blanket OK for
removing the advertising clause from a particular form of the UC
Regents license.

Not only is the license on gprof _not_ that particular form of the UC
Regents license, i.e., the acknowledgement clause in the gprof license
is really quite different and therefore the notice you cite above
doesn't apply, but the proposal wasn't simply to remove the
advertising clause, it was to substantially change the license, in
effect "upgrading" it to a newer, more explicitly permissive, version.

Search for 'modification' in both halves of the patch.  It's in the
new, not in the old.  That's an example.

And, as far as I know there was never blanket approval given by UC to
update old-style license for new...  But, I've never really searched
for such approval in the past.  If there is such approval, like I
said, I would like to know about it.  8-)


cgd