[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Is the Caldera license acceptable?
From: |
E. Weddington |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Is the Caldera license acceptable? |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:44:37 -0600 |
On 16 Oct 2002 at 21:31, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> While trying to add floating point conversions to vfprintf(), i
> contemplate using the V7 UNIX approach, which uses ecvt(), fcvt(), and
> gcvt() to convert the numbers. For some reasons, this currently looks
> more promising to me than dtostre()/dtostrf() (in particular, since
> these functions already implement array boundary checks to not
> overflow the resulting string).
>
> Since old Unices are now opensource, we could use the original
> implementation directly. However, the Caldera license that made
> these Unices opensource is basically the old 4-clause BSD-style
> license, i. e. it contains the clause with ``All advertising
> materials...'' which GNU folks seem to hate. So the question is,
> would this be a problem to us (including hosting it on savannah), or
> could we use that code literally?
>
> The original Caldera document can be found e. g. at
> ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/Caldera-license.pdf. I'm
> appending a text translation of it for reference.
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.
If it does get included, then a caveat had better be put in somewhere
explaining this to end-users. Doing this could prove to be a head-
ache.
How hard would it be to mod the current dtostr[e|f]() to achieve the
desired results?
Eric