On Wednesday 22 November 2006 22:57, Attila Kinali wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:51:16 -0500 > > "Timothy Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/22/06, Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3430 > > > > > > So, should it be okay to require a hardware manufacturer to put > > > the logo of the creator of the HDL on the hardware itself? > > > > That depends on the license. GPL doesn't require it, but I think > > it would be a good idea. > > I don't think it's a good idea to require a logo. > It will create endless problems when you derive code > from others work. The bigh strength of OSS is that > you can copy from others by just sticking to a similar > license. Most programs i worked with copied from at > least a dozen other projects. But if the restriction > of adding a logo would be added, then anyone copying > code from someone else would need to stick another > logo to its program. And in the end, the UI would > consist of a dozen of logos that obliterate the > functional part completely.
Which is, incidentally, exactly the argument against the advertisement clause in the original BSD licence. According to the FSF, the original BSD licence is in fact a free software licence, but it causes great practical difficulty for exactly the reason you mention. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#OriginalBSD Lourens
pgpKLFpnWnR7H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
