PCRE License

[Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>]

Are we in violation of section 2? Looks that way to me. License attached for
convenience... Easy enough to fix, if indeed it needs fixing.

Bill

PCRE LICENCE
------------

PCRE is a library of functions to support regular expressions whose syntax
and semantics are as close as possible to those of the Perl 5 language.

Written by: Philip Hazel <ph...@cam.ac.uk>

University of Cambridge Computing Service,
Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.

Copyright (c) 1997-2000 University of Cambridge

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose on any
computer system, and to redistribute it freely, subject to the following
restrictions:

1. This software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by
   explicit claim or by omission. In practice, this means you must put
   a sentence like this

     Regular expression support is provided by the PCRE library package,
     which is open source software, copyright by the University of
     Cambridge.

   somewhere reasonably visible in your documentation and in any relevant
   files. A reference to the ftp site for the source should also be given

     ftp://ftp.csx.cam.ac.uk/pub/software/programming/pcre/

   in the documentation.

3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
   misrepresented as being the original software.

4. If PCRE is embedded in any software that is released under the GNU
   General Purpose Licence (GPL), then the terms of that licence shall
   supersede any condition above with which it is incompatible.

End

Re: PCRE License

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>]

PCRE 3.7 has consistent terms in both files, now matching what was just
in LICENCE before.  We should import 3.7 before the next release.

....Roy

Re: PCRE License

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 12:16:49PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 02:05:35PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Are we in violation of section 2? Looks that way to me. License attached for
> > convenience... Easy enough to fix, if indeed it needs fixing.
> 
> Weird, why didn't I see that when I looked at it just two weeks ago?

Whoa Nelly... now I know why.  There is both a COPYING file and a LICENCE
file in that directory, and the contents differ.  Which one is right?
Both seem to have been in Ryan's initial import.

....Roy

Re: PCRE License

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 02:05:35PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Are we in violation of section 2? Looks that way to me. License attached for
> convenience... Easy enough to fix, if indeed it needs fixing.

Weird, why didn't I see that when I looked at it just two weeks ago?

Our README currently contains

  This package contains software written by Philip Hazel and copyrighted by 
  the University of Cambridge.  Please see the file called 
  srclib/pcre/COPYING. 

and I noted that in my sample NOTICE file in the license discussion.
Meanwhile, I'll fix the README.

....Roy