On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 13:04, Branden Robinson wrote: > Historically, this is regarded as a GPL-compatible license. The > GPL-incompatible BSD-style clause is the one that *forces* you to > publicize the name of the copyright holder in advertising materials. "...provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation" appears in that license, right before the "can't use name" thing. This differs from the OK clause in the BSD license which says that notice can be either in the "documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." It's not as bad as the advertising clause for sure, though it would require Debian to have it in the supporting documentation. Pretty vague what that is, though. (All supporting documentation? At least one peice? Is LICENSE in /usr/share/doc/package enough?)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part