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

Re: Which license for a documentation?

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:

> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd 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?
> No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues
> with those licenses.

I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra

Måns Rullgård

Reply to: