[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Which license for a documentation?



On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
> >> suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
> >> frown upon the request for credit.
> >
> > Nobody here would do so, just so you know.  :-)
> 
> Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of
> the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?

No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues
with those licenses.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: