Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s) >> > * and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote >> > * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written >> > * authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s). >> >> That's clearly GPL-incompatible -- I don't know that that's a problem >> for the relevant code, but I'd imagine it would be for *some* X code. > > Huh ? It just says that you are not allowed to use the name of the author for > promotion and such ? How is that GPL incompatible ?
It's an additional restriction, and thus conflicts with GPL 6. >> I think it's right on the border of freedom, but on the non-free side >> of that border. It prohibits some true statements -- if I'm trying to >> sell some kiosk to a third party, and he asks me who wrote the >> autoconfig code, I *can't tell him*. That seems pretty weird, in a >> situation in which I allegedly have freedom. > > Well you could tell him to look at the copyright notice of the software ? Yes, I could, but I can't make some true statements! That can't be free. >> I can't even put "Copyright 2004 Ben Bitdiddle, some parts Copyright >> 200x David Dawes" in there. Heck, I can't even write this message, >> talking about how great X.Org's software is and how much I love the >> autoconfig stuff by David Dawes! This very paragraph violates that >> license. > > No, i think you exagerate. The prohibition is in advertizing and promotion, so > what you are barred to do is release flyers or software boxes/CD covers with a > "Written by David Dawes" on it. Yes. I can't put a copyright notice on the outside of the package, for example, unless it's a copy of this entire notice. It very clearly prohibits the use of the name of the copyright holder to promote the *use or other dealings* in the software. So I can't even file an RFP for software under this license which mentions the copyright holder's name, because that's promoting dealing in the software. > Seems similar to " you can use, modify, distribute, whatever, except you have > to rename the software and not use the trademarked name or something such", > except that would be even more constraining. And indeed, that's non-free --- solely because it also bans using the trademarked name in other contexts. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
