Re: [ns] NS license

[John Heidemann <johnh@ISI.EDU>]

>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, John Heidemann wrote:
>
>> I'd like to answer your question, but it's not completely clear to me
>> what your question is.
>
>Ben was responding to Valerie's original question in:
>http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/archive/ns-users/webarch/2001/msg06089.html
>(and included the full text of it in his reply).

Sorry, I missed that.

>> In general, we want ns to be widely used---it's used at public
>> schools (like the UC system), private schools (like USC and U.
>> Penn.).
>
>but under what terms? Note that Valerie is asking a specific legal
>question, coming from a legal background:
>
>$ Especially, is it authorized to publish and market courses about how
>$ to use NS ?
>
>such courses presumably wouldn't be much use without a working copy of
>ns...

As I said,  if you're concerned, please contact me directly.

>...
>I see the diffusion3 code is under the GPL - does this mean that all
>of ns is now under the GPL rather than the BSD license, since the GPL
>is viral? (and won't that conflict with the Xerox license?) I note
>that the GPL is not listed in COPYRIGHTS?rev=1.4, and I imagine there
>are other licenses not listed there as well.
>...

Hmmm... thanks for catching that.  That would be a bug.
Diffusion3 was supposed to be LGPLed, which should be compatible
with the other ns licenses.  This will be fixed shortly.

   -John Heidemann