Tim Cook wrote:
>
> "Daniel L. Johnson, MD" wrote:
> >
> > This is why the Mozilla Public License. Have you rejected
> > that, or a modification of it?
>
> To be honest. I was in a position where I had rewritten FreePM
> and it was time for the new release. I did not want to continue
> with the GPL. I had too many irons in the fire and chose the
> easiest path. Based on BSD but without the annoying advertisement
> clause. So in many ways it is similar to Zope, Python etc. But I
> did not want to draw fire with a "FreePM Open Source License" so
> I just called it a BSD-style (even though RMS hates that too).
>
> Basically says that you can do what you want with the code. I'm
> (nor are contributors) responsible for anything that happens
> because you used it. However you distribute it, binary or source
> it must contain proper attributions to the authors and a link to
> freepm.org
My guru agrees with your decision, and notes that BSD themselves
took out the "annoying advertisement clause" (his words also) a
couple of years ago.
His summary of the BSD license: "not viral." (a compliment)
DJ
_______________________________________________
Freepm-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freepm-discuss
