Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thursday, 01 December 2005, at 13:29:31 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
>> and other peopl have every right to work on the code.
>
> I never said otherwise.
>
>> actually its a matter for those who use and write the licenses.
>
> <snip>
>
> You are entitled to your interpretation.  It means absolutely nothing,
> however, as the true test is how the judicial system interprets it.
>
> In my interpretation, the license gives permission to do certain
> things to the code but does NOT provide rights to the name.  In
> fact, the spirit of the license as we've stated it in the past is
> that "you can do whatever with this as long as you don't try to pass
> it off as yours."  Releasing something under the same name could
> easily be interpreted as doing just that.

But this kind of restriction is precisely what the LPPL (LaTeX project
public license, http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/) has since it
specifically requires that you make derived works identify themselves
as that.

I believe that license is considered stronger than the GPL (more
restrictive).

And given that the BSD license is more permissive than the GPL, the
BSD license cannot have such a requirement: BSD < GPL < LPPL (in terms
of requirements).

-- 
Martin Geisler                                     GnuPG Key: 0x7E45DD38

PHP Exif Library      |  PHP Weather             |  PHP Shell
http://pel.sf.net/    |  http://phpweather.net/  |  http://mgeisler.net/
Read/write Exif data  |  Show current weather    |  A shell in a browser

Attachment: pgpGgkgx930pk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to