license change (all contributors please follow up)
elanthis at awesomeplay.com
Tue May 25 08:45:31 PDT 2004
On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 11:22, Dan Winship wrote:
> 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
Hmm, not the version I'm aware of.
http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Is that a newer version
or something then?
> > 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.)
No, the three clause BSD license is *NOT* GPL compatible. Only the
modified two clause license is. See
> -- Dan
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
More information about the dbus