Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> And the MIT license says:
>
> MIT> ... that the name of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> MIT> (M.I.T.) not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
> MIT> distribution of the software without specific, written prior
> MIT> permission.
>
> So there are some pretty big differences there. First, the BSD
> license only limits promotion of software *derived from* the work.
> That seems like it's an important difference for some sorts of
> advertising restriction, but probably not this one. That is, if I
> edited a freely-licensed version of the GNU Manifesto to say terrible
> things, I should no longer be able to advertise it as being by RMS.
>
> And the MIT license only talks about promoting *distribution* of the
> work.
>
> Those are both much narrower than this license, which talks about
> promotion or advertising of use or modification ("other dealings") of
> the work. So I can't file a bug report and mention the author's name,
> because that is material promoting modification of the work.
>
> It's not just non-free; it's not practical to work with such
> restricted software.
To adapt one of your previous examples, using this line of reasoning,
you could not file an RFP for MIT-licensed software, because you would
have to mention MIT in the license name.
Or am I wrong?
Michael Poole
