Re: wpoison, is it okay?
"Sunnanvind" <sunnanvind@fenderson.com> writes:
> The way I conjecture the license writers intentions; you still can point
> to a rival, forket wpoison project *as long as you don't use the official
> image*; and if you don't like image links, just don't link to the page at
> all (in which case, don't use the logo).
That may be the intention. It is, however, not what the license says.
> The way I read the BSD-license, people can't just take the code, remove
> the notice and say "Hey, I wrote this!". It requires credit where credit
> is due (much like the GPL).
Well, you read it wrong. What it says is that if you do any
advertising, you have a positive obligation to include a special
sentence (with particular words) in the advertising. Such a
requirement does not make the software non-free, though it is
incompatible with the GPL. BSD eventually removed the requirement.
The wpoison license, by contrast, seems to require such an
advertisement *always*--whether that's what they intended, or not.
That not only makes it nonfree, it also means we can't distribute it
in non-free.
> What's written can also be interpreted as "If you use this program, you
> must display a linked logo on your web page". (Very similar to the zope
> case; but unlike the zope case it's doesn't break dfsg 3, which zope
> would've done since it would automatically put the picture there and non-
> removability of that code would break dfsg 3. [That might've been a
> misunderstanding from me.]) In this case, I guess main would be out of
> the question, but how about non-free?
That's what's written. If you want it in non-free, then you have to
comply with that requirement. And golly, where are you planning on
putting that link?
Reply to: