"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The way I conjecture the license writers intentions; you still can point > to a rival, forket wpoison project *as long as you don't use the official > image*; and if you don't like image links, just don't link to the page at > all (in which case, don't use the logo).
That may be the intention. It is, however, not what the license says. > The way I read the BSD-license, people can't just take the code, remove > the notice and say "Hey, I wrote this!". It requires credit where credit > is due (much like the GPL). Well, you read it wrong. What it says is that if you do any advertising, you have a positive obligation to include a special sentence (with particular words) in the advertising. Such a requirement does not make the software non-free, though it is incompatible with the GPL. BSD eventually removed the requirement. The wpoison license, by contrast, seems to require such an advertisement *always*--whether that's what they intended, or not. That not only makes it nonfree, it also means we can't distribute it in non-free. > What's written can also be interpreted as "If you use this program, you > must display a linked logo on your web page". (Very similar to the zope > case; but unlike the zope case it's doesn't break dfsg 3, which zope > would've done since it would automatically put the picture there and non- > removability of that code would break dfsg 3. [That might've been a > misunderstanding from me.]) In this case, I guess main would be out of > the question, but how about non-free? That's what's written. If you want it in non-free, then you have to comply with that requirement. And golly, where are you planning on putting that link?
