Hi Oliver;
On 03/29/12 10:23, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
The advertisement clause is this one:
" 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the <organization>."
It is somewhat inconvenient for end distributors but there are deep
political
reasons behind the FSF's hate for this clause (somewhat related to
obliterating the individual in favor of a collective entity owning
the code).
Thank you very much for this clarification.
I am just doing the wrong stuff - Thx a lot.
No problem ... it's not really all crystal clear and there no guide
through this ;).
Have you seen William A. Rowe Jr.'s reply on legal-discuss. He
stated that it
should be included in the LICENSE file.
OK, I read it. I agree that would be the ideal but still that is not
legally
consistent.
IMHO, it's really a bad idea to bundle GPL stuff in the binary packages.
I more or less can understand this from your point of view.
Our users which want to use our office it is hardly understandable,
why certain stuff is not directly available after they have installed
the software. I think these kind of users do not care about which
open-source license the pieces have they are using.
Yes, and to be honest I don't really care about it either.
The real inconsistency is in the guys that licensed the dictionary:
I doubt they will sue anyone, and even if they could we are not
removing OpenSSL to include a dictionary :-P.
cheers,
Pedro.
