Karl A. Krueger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| For more information:
Note that this page still contains a small but important omission:
Dean Hal Varian at the University of California took up the cause,
and championed it with the administration. In June 1999, after two
years of discussions, the University of California removed this
clause from the license of BSD.
Thus, there is now a new BSD license which does not contain the
More importantly, when the Regents of the University of California
approved the change, they also announced that it was *retroactive*
to all pre-existing UCB-developed code. That is, one may safely ignore
the advertising clause in any pre-1999 direct BSD copyright notice,
as you can see from this excerpt from the official announcement
[heavily edited for brevity]:
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD")
source code files require that further distributions... acknowledge
within their advertising materials that such products contain
software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors.
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer
required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials.
Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files
containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety.
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley
Although, as the above-referenced URL notes, this did not entirely fix
Unfortunately, this does not eliminate the legacy of the advertising
clause: similar clauses are still present in the licenses of many
packages which are not part of BSD. The change in license for BSD
has no effect on the other packages which imitated the old BSD
license; only the developers who made them can change them.
So if you have a favorite package which still uses the BSD license
with the advertising clause, please ask the maintainer to look at
this web page, and consider making the change.
Note also that they suggest using the MIT X license instead of the
"new" BSD license, just to avoid accidentally picking up an "old" BSD
license by mistake, though that seems a bit condescending to me.
IMHO & AFAIK, there is no serious reason to prefer one over the other.
If you're adding to something that already uses an "X11-style" license,
just use that one to keep it simple for later developers, and conversely
if you're adding to code with a "new BSD-style" license.
Rob Warnock <email@example.com>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607