On Thursday 31 May 2007 19:54, Charles Plessy wrote: > As a personal point of view, I would never pacakge a 4-clause licenced > software. It just means that the advertisement clause would be > deliberately violated in so many cases, I do not want to take that > responsibility. Actually, I prepared the primer3 Debian package, which > was relicenced upstream from 4-clause to 3-clause after my request. > Definitely, the fsf page I cite above is well written, convincing, and > contains a "University of California did so" example which has some > wheight as well.
As a counterexample, the afflib at [1] was specifically licensed under the 4-clause because the company developing thinks they deserve the credit for developing it. It seems kind of arrogant when others most certainly have contributed to the library's development. [1]http://www.afflib.org/ wt -- Warren Turkal, Research Associate III/Systems Administrator Colorado State University, Dept. of Atmospheric Science -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]