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
pgpGgkgx930pk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
