Follow-up Comment #4, task #16425 (project administration): (I hope these comments help resolve the ongoing issues. I am not an administrator here and am only trying to understand the differences between the submissions.)
For your reference, the a copy of the licence, file named COPYING, linked at an external website at https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16414#comment3 is included below: ---- Flex carries the copyright used for BSD software, slightly modified because it originated at the Lawrence Berkeley (not Livermore!) Laboratory, which operates under a contract with the Department of Energy: Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 The Flex Project. Copyright (c) 1990, 1997 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by Vern Paxson. The United States Government has rights in this work pursuant to contract no. DE-AC03-76SF00098 between the United States Department of Energy and the University of California. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This basically says "do whatever you please with this software except remove this notice or take advantage of the University's (or the flex authors') name". Note that the "flex.skl" scanner skeleton carries no copyright notice. You are free to do whatever you please with scanners generated using flex; for them, you are not even bound by the above copyright. ---- The current submitted file has a licence that states the following (in file LICENSE): ---- GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007 [GNU v3 licence text follows] ---- It looks like a relicensing to me, from a BSD-like licence to a GNU GPL v3. - Is it allowed to state 'All rights reserved' in a licence file? - Is this allowed to change a licence like this? Perhaps someone has a copy with the old licence on it. - Have other authors of flex, if anyone contributed other than yourself, been consulted about this? - The present submission, in error.c file, has a author line " 2023 Gianluca Graziadei - Stefano Scanzio"; the external website stated "Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 The Flex Project." and "Copyright (c) 1990, 1997 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved." in the COPYING file, and "In 2001, Will Estes took over as maintainer of flex. John Millaway is a co-author of the current version of flex. He has contributed a large number of new features, fixed a large number of outstanding bugs and has made significant contributions to the flex documentation. Aaron Stone has contributed several bug fixes to the flex codebase. Vern Paxson wrote flex with the help of many ideas and much inspiration from Van Jacobson. Original version by Jef Poskanzer. The fast table representation is a partial implementation of a design done by Van Jacobson. The implementation was done by Kevin Gong and Vern Paxson." in AUTHORS file - Noting the external website linked in https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16414#comment3 has a completely different software program, the contents of the .c files do not match; are these two softwares related? Please clarify. - Perhaps the above is a good reason to choose another name for this software, that is, not "flex"? Perhaps FlexLibrary, flexlibrary, flex-library, flexlib, or libflex might be more suitable. - Is it flex (as linked at https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16414#comment3 comment) or flet (as titled here)? Thank you. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16425> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
