On 2023-06-27 16:19, Richard Laager wrote:
For BSD-3-Clause-Attribution
BTW, my suggestion of asking CMU to drop the clause should not be read as taking or agreeing to the position that it is GPL-incompatible.
I don't actually see an incompatibility with BSD-3-Clause-Attribution. The original BSD license, which the FSF says is GPL-incompatible, said: All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: ... BSD-3-Clause-Attribution is different: Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: ... The "bad" clause requires you to put something in "advertising materials".The actual effect of BSD-3-Clause-Attribution is that you need to retain the license grant block itself, which is already required by the 1st (for source) and 2nd (for binaries) clauses anyway, is always done by Debian, and is fine.
There is no practical difference between retaining (or being forced to retain) the following in a license block:
"This product includes software developed by <developer>."
vs
"Copyright <developer>"
They mean literally the same thing!
--
Richard
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
