* Martijn van Oosterhout (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 12:08:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > libjpeg, my other major open-source project, has always been shipped > > under a BSD-ish license that includes an "advertising" clause; I quote: > > > > : (2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying > > : documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work > > of > > : the Independent JPEG Group". > > That's not an advertising clause, that merely asks that it be mentioned > somewhere in the documentation, which is copied along with the rest of > the code, so that's not limiting the redisitribution of anything. It > also only applies when the source is not distributed, which means for > the GPL it's a total non-issue.
Exactly. There isn't a "only executable code is distributed" case when GPL code is involved so that clause wouldn't ever apply. > Because there is a very large, very meaningful difference. Agreed. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature