Re: Question about the old BSD license and GPL (gtkipmsg)
On 23 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
>> Whether or not the GNU foundation needs to mention the Apache project is
>> irrelevant: what matters is whether Debian needs to, and a good portion of
>> Debian systems DO run Apache code. Isn't it only fair that Debian shares
>> the credit for the systems with the people who made parts of them?
>
>Please read the license more carefully. We certainly do comply with
>it.
In that case, this whole thing is a no-op. The issue at hand is whether
Debian is breaking the 4 clause BSDL. Apache was used presumably as an
example of a 4 clause BSDL (I can't say, it wasn't me who brought it
up...)
>As for whether we should give Apache some special pre-eminence, that
>makes no sense at all. Apache, like all the other packages we
>distribute, gets its name nicely blathered in all the places all those
>other names get listed.
No, it doesn't need PRECEDENCE, it needs EQUALITY... It was said that
Debian's mention wasn't enough to cover clause 3: my point is that perhaps
this should not be a matter of legality, but one of conscience. If Debian
is failing to meet the legal standard for credit where credit is due, it
logically must be failing to meet the [much higher IMHO] moral standard.
>
>
--
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath wisdom count the number of the BSD: for
it is the number of a man; and his number is VI VI VI.
(ir-reve-rent-lations 13:17-19)
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: