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

Re: Is no-advertising clause GPL-compatible?

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

Reply to: