On Tuesday March 20 2001 06:12 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to > endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may > not appear in the product name) will not. Why is it always the non-GPL license that must conform? Why is the GPL never criticized for being incompatible? -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org
- Apache vs. BSD licenses Ian Stokes-Rees
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Ian Stokes-Rees
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses John Cowan
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Brian Behlendorf
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses phil hunt
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses Brian Behlendorf
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses kmself
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses kmself
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses kmself
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses David Johnson
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses kmself
- Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses phil hunt