On Thursday, 01 December 2005, at 08:53:33 (+0100), Martin Geisler wrote: > But this kind of restriction is precisely what the LPPL (LaTeX project > public license, http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/) has since it > specifically requires that you make derived works identify themselves > as that. > > I believe that license is considered stronger than the GPL (more > restrictive). > > And given that the BSD license is more permissive than the GPL, the > BSD license cannot have such a requirement: BSD < GPL < LPPL (in terms > of requirements).
By your logic, the BSD license with advertising clause, which is what we use, would be GPL compatible. But it's not. It, too, is considered more restrictive than the GPL (which is stupid, but true). Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Herein is Wisdom: Knowing your strengths, knowing your weaknesses, and knowing when her husband gets home from work so you don't pass him coming up the driveway." -- Unknown ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
