Fawzi Mohamed wrote: > after some extra digging > > tango licensing: > > BSD (and this is the revised 3 clause BSD) > - is compatible with GPL > - copyright need to be advertised also in the documentation and binary > > a commonly used permissive license (which probably you are using when > linking for example network code in almost any operating system). > It does *not* include the original fourth statement of BSD > > APL > - similar to BSD, but with some extra protections against the liability > of the licenser, in particular with respect to patents > - these extra restrictions make it incompatible with GPLv2 > - it should be equivalent to apache 2.0 ( > http://www.opensource.org/proliferation-report ) > and so it might be compatible with GPLv3 but I am not 100% sure on this. > > In any case the double licensing of tango allows one to use it also with > GPL code > > Fawzi >
When was the last time you had to put this in your GCC-compiled programs? "Portions of this program Copyright (C) Free Software Foundation. Uses glibc." For a regular library, binary attribution clauses are OK. For a standard library, it's distasteful [1]. I shouldn't HAVE to worry about legal issues from compiling Hello World. -- Daniel [1] I've contributed code to Tango under BSD. If I'd have known about this issue, I would have made it Public Domain or a license without the binary attribution clause.