PPC405GPr with RTEMS + Support? (+ License talk)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 16:43, Joel Sherrill  wrote:
> Smith, Gene wrote:
> > Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp.com> wrote, On 8/5/2004 4:07 PM:

> 
> Ralf.. as of June 6, the current FreeBSD code still had this in it.
> What is their policy again?

See http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html

And the paragraphs on NetBSD vs. FreeBSD from 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
...
NetBSD comes with a long list of different sentences, required by the
various licenses for parts of the system. In a 1997 version of NetBSD, I
counted 75 of these sentences. I would not be surprised if the list has
grown by now.

To address this problem, in my ``spare time'' I talk with developers who
have used BSD-style licenses, asking them if they would please remove
the advertising clause. Around 1996 I spoke with the developers of
FreeBSD about this, and they decided to remove the advertising clause
from all of their own code. In May 1998 the developers of Flick, at the
University of Utah, removed this clause.

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.
...

In practice, the situation is: FreeBSD is gradually removing it, however
it is still in place at some spots.

What I can't answer: 
Can the original UCB ad-clause be neglected, because it can be presumed
the UCB  won't enforce it, rsp. can the UCB-ad-clause be considered
removed even if it is physically present in code?

Ralf