> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> igor wrote: >a new license yet, but here it is: > > > >/* ===================================================================== > > * Copyright (c) 1998 Moxa Technologies Corp, LTD. All rights reserved. > [...] > > * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > > * software must display the following acknowledgment: > > * "This product includes software developed by the Moxa Technologies > > * Corp, LTD. for use in the Moxa RADIUS Server (http://www.moxa.com/)." > > Urk! It's the Obnoxious BSD Advertising Clause, back to haunt us. > > Including the OBSDAC would make Moxa non-free. Please educate them > about that, too, and suggest they use an XFree86-like licence rather > than this BSD-like one.
I don't understand. We haven't declared all BSD software non-free yet, have we? How come moxa doesn't fit the bill. It has the exact same clause. I seem to remember a long discussion on -devel, but didn't we conclude that this BSD clause doesn't make software non-free? Anyway, could you explain to me how this advertising clause is so harmful? Thanks. -- Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation.... Igor Grobman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
