On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:40:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm ok with 1, 2 and 4. But 3 (and advertisement clause) I'm not > > sure about. I've searched the list but havent't found any > > information on wether advertisement clauses are ok or not. The > > latest license mentioning an advertisement clause [2] wasn't turned > > down because of this. > > We generally accept sw with a noxious advertising clause. It is, > however, not GPL compatible. > > However, people usually have the clause because they copied the > license from the old BSD license. You should ask the author if he > will follow UCB's lead and remove it.
Useful to point people at when making such requests: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html (No, I'm not an adherent of the Church of the GPL; however, this is a nicely concise summary of reasons not to use it, epecially the fact that the folks who origionally wrote it have changed it to no longer have the advertising clause.) -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpdiOgQogI4q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
