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

Re: Which license for a documentation?

Lewis Jardine <lewisjardine@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
>>>Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>>Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
>>>>suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
>>>>frown upon the request for credit.
>>>Nobody here would do so, just so you know.  :-)
>> Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of
>> the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?
> The difference here is that this license requests that the user give
> credit, while the OAC requires giving credit in order to distribute
> the work.

I know what "please" means.  What I fail to understand is what it is
that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.  Apparently
there are those who think differently, though, and we will probably
never agree, so let's not turn this into another pointless flame war.
That was not my intent.

Måns Rullgård

Reply to: