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

Re: License of honeyd



On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:40:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org> writes:
> 
> > I'm ok with 1, 2 and 4. But 3 (and advertisement clause) I'm not
> > sure about.  I've searched the list but havent't found any
> > information on wether advertisement clauses are ok or not. The
> > latest license mentioning an advertisement clause [2] wasn't turned
> > down because of this.
> 
> We generally accept sw with a noxious advertising clause.  It is,
> however, not GPL compatible.
> 
> However, people usually have the clause because they copied the
> license from the old BSD license.  You should ask the author if he
> will follow UCB's lead and remove it.

Useful to point people at when making such requests:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

(No, I'm not an adherent of the Church of the GPL; however, this is a
nicely concise summary of reasons not to use it, epecially the fact that
the folks who origionally wrote it have changed it to no longer have the
advertising clause.)
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgphwlMNry3TQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: