Re: [avr-libc-dev] Is the Caldera license acceptable?

[Joerg Wunsch]

Ah, i already feared nobody would discuss this. ;-)

As E. Weddington wrote:

> I would be loathe to accept it. If any code had the "advertising"
> clause on it, I would not use it on the commercial products that I'm
> working on, or any other products for that matter.

OK, i'll have to accept this (and i somewhat feared you'd say this
;-).

> How hard would it be to mod the current dtostr[e|f]() to achieve the
> desired results?

Probably a complete rewrite, with a new API, now that i know how all
this is working.  (I meanwhile got a vfprintf() implementation that
already understands %e, although it's still fairly fat.)

As Theodore A. Roth wrote:

> What does OSI say about the 4-claus bsd license?

OSI?  Open Systems Interconnect?

Ah wait, Open Source Initiative. :-)  OK.  They don't list the 4-clause
BSD license, but only tell that UCB has officially withdrawn clause 3.
However, other licenses like that from Apache contain similar clauses
and are acceptable to them.

> Does FreeBSD use the 4-claus?

Officially net.  Technically, many files still contain clause 3
because of their heritage, but the official UCB statement simply
applies and makes this clause void in all files.  (Removing the clause
from the files would have caused more CVS traffic than seemed useful,
given that the clause is void regardless of whether it's physically
removed from the files or not.)

OK, you guys convinced me.  Since i won't be using the old files
verbatim anyway, i'll see to either rewrite that part (now that i
understood what they are doing :), or maybe take it from somewhere
else like FreeBSD.

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