On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:30:23PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Isn't the "copyright notice" a form of advertising?
yes, but as has been said before, the advertizing itself is not the problem. the problem is if it is anything additional. the gpl mandates that you advertize the license. bsd 4-clause mandates that you advertize the author. combine gpl and bsd 4-clause code and you get a mandate to advertize the license AND the author. the bsd 4-clause license is ok with that, because as long as the author is advertized the license is fulfilles the gpl is not ok with that, because it says: you must not demand anything more than what the gpl already demands. the gpl does not demand that the author be advertized, and hence, you must not do so. it is an additional restriction beyond the gpl. and therefore a violation. one possible solution to that may well be that in the next version of the gpl, the requirement for advertizing the author as bsd 4-clause mandates, may be allowed. after all, it does not really violate the spirit of being able to access, modify and distribute the code. it just happens to be the case that the gpl currently does not contain such an exception, and even if anybody would be ok with an exception, this does not help until the license is actually changed. greetings, martin. -- cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix offering: programming, training and administration - anywhere in the world -- pike programmer travelling and working in europe open-steam.org unix system- bahai.or.at iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at administrator (caudium|gotpike).org is.schon.org Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
