Re: [ng-spice] Draft letter to Sangiovanni Vincentelli


To ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it
From Manu Rouat <emmanuel.rouat@wanadoo.fr>
Date Tue, 01 Feb 2000 20:07:53 -0500
Delivered-To mailing list ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it
Mailing-List contact ng-spice-help@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it; run by ezmlm
Organization la Guilde
References <3.0.6.32.20000130021457.007b4230@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it >
Reply-To ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it
Sender rouat@war.wanadoo.com

Francesco Doni wrote:

> About the license problem, though I'm not an expert on the subject,
> I would point out what I think the other side of the coin.
> I agree with the several who wrote about using spice code,
> for istance Reid van Melle:
> >In fact, you are free to use pieces of Spice code in your
> >own simulator and change the license to whatever you wish.
> >This is exactly what hundred of companies have been doing
> >for years (commercial licenses) resulting in a plethora of Spice
> >versions in the marketplace.
> 
> The Berkeley issue allow you to change, add or what else and then
> sell YOUR product provided few things that I report hereafter
>          (a)  The licensee agrees not to charge for the University of Cal-
>                ifornia code itself.  The licensee may, however, charge for
>                additions, extensions, or support.
>           (b)  In any product based on the software, the licensee agrees to
>                acknowledge the research group that developed the software.
>                This acknowledgment shall appear in the product documenta-
>                tion.
>           (c)  The licensee agrees to obey all U.S. Government restrictions
>                governing redistribution or export of the software and docu-
>                mentation.
>           (d)  For software with additional restrictions (any software
>                listed in Section 2), the licensee agrees to all additional
>                terms governing distribution of that software.
>           (e)  The licensee agree to reproduce any copyright notice which
>                appears on the software and documentation provided under
>                this agreement on any copy or modification of such made
>                available to others by licensee.
> 
> The main problem I think we could have and at Berkeley
> could underline is not the license itself but the overall issue to
> comply with the Export Administration Regulations,

No - AFAIK there are no problems with that regarding the spice program.
The main incompatibility between this licence and the GPL is clause b)
(and apparently also clause a which isn't a usual clause in Berkeley
software, but I could be wrong)


> Is the Berkeley license to interfere with the GNU one or
> vice versa, I believe in the second option.
> The GNU software, which could be invaluable for our purpose,
> has strict license terms.

the real question is: will they agree to release their software under the 
terms
of the 'new style' BSD licence? If they do, then no problem.


manu


Partial thread listing: