[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:


(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: pgp3JLQ9zgNUJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: