On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:42:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > 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. > > > > That's the "not quite" part. It's almost entirely irrelevant because > > "advertising clause" is just the name for this clause, and has got > > nothing to do with the reasons why it is a problem. I could call it > > the "stupid invariant section clause", which would be about as > > accurate, without changing anything significant about it. > > The FSF's "OAC" reasoning is combining the fact that 1: it requires credits > in advertising with 2: these clauses "stack" as different people use > different texts. The result is that the license ends up meaning "you must > include the following 70 verbatim texts in all of your advertising if you > mention the software". I believe this is why it was dubbed the "OAC"--not > merely that it required verbatim texts. > > A "stupid invariant section clause" only has #2, and not #1. The Apache > license (1.1) has one of those. Those are annoying, and to be discouraged, > but they aren't the OAC. Sure, that's why it's a disgusting and offensive clause. It's not why it's GPL-incompatible. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature