Re: Which license for a documentation?
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
> in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
> restrictions.
The fuss about the OAC was that it required credit in advertising. Please read
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
"Imagine if a software system required 75 different sentences, each one
naming a different author or group of authors. To advertise that, you
would need a full-page ad."
It's also GPL-incompatible, for the reason you gave, but that's not what
"the fuss was about".
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: