license change (all contributors please follow up)

Dan Winship danw at
Tue May 25 08:22:56 PDT 2004

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 09:39 -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> Out of curiosity (I might have missed the original thread on this) why
> is the three clause BSD license used instead of the two-clause or
> MIT/X11 license?

The standard MIT/X11-style license has the anti-advertising clause as

> Anyone getting the software can opt to use the LGPL
> license and use the organizations/contributors in advertising under that
> license anyhow, so I don't see the clause adding anything of value
> except a bad taste in some people's mouths who don't like that third
> clause.  ;-)

IANAL, but my understanding is that the anti-advertising clause is not
really a restriction, but merely a clarification. "The fact that we are
giving you the right to distribute this software does not mean we are
also giving you the right to use our name however you want." (Proof: if
it was a "further restriction" on your rights, it wouldn't be
GPL-compatible. But the FSF says it is GPL-compatible. So it is not a
"further restriction", and the same anti-advertising rule must apply to
GPLed software. QED.)

-- Dan

More information about the dbus mailing list