As far as I can judge, you need to include the entire license - or at
least the majority of it - in the documentation (not just a single
line). For an end user product that's fine, but I would rather not have
to ask clients to do so if I am distributing middleware simply because
of a component that I use internally and which they never see. It's a
pretty big difference from public domain in that respect, though I
realize that it is a difference that many people don't care about.
I would be curious to hear what the developers think about this, since
this license differs from the rest of the SqLite codebase. Of course it
is an extension so you don't need to include it, but I'm curious
nonetheless.
Thanks in advance for any clarification.
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
On 5/7/2018 4:54 PM, Peter Da Silva wrote:
On 5/6/18, 11:23 AM, "sqlite-users on behalf of Philip Bennefall"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Only the requirement for attribution in binaries. That can be
significant in certain use cases.
One line of text in the documentation provided with the distribution doesn't
seem burdensome. It's not like the advertising clause in the original BSD
license... is that what you're thinking of?
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
