MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-04 18:47:02 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable in the view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Can someone give a conclusive statement of what actually happened? The bug report 152547 looks like someone moved an advert into the docs accompanying, rather than removed any attribution. Now, if you call that advert "the credits" then I think you have a different view to many people.
Show me the line in those credits where it said "buy Coca-Cola cheaper here". They were credits, not advertisements.
Their new condition clause 4, which says you cannot use their name, even for accurate reporting. Normally, this would just be a false statement, but this licence makes it a condition of the grant. I've not seen that mistake committed by anyone else yet.
Can you supply their full verbatim phrasing so that we can discuss it accurately? I'd like to understand whether your characterization is correct.
You seem to understand the difference between credit and advertisement as advertisements are credits for those you dislike. If they are putting their name on their software or its documentation, then surely it is a credit not an advertisement.
And call it a credit clause, not an advertising clause. Advertisements sell products, credits describe who made the project happen.
No, it is advertising for the XFree86 Project, Inc. In addition to acknowledging their copyright (the credit), that advert may have to appear.
