On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:35:16PM -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote: > On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 09:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:12:51PM -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > > > http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/browser/trunk/bcfg2/LICENSE > > > > > > Free enough for extras? > > > > No, because of the advertisement clause: > > > > "4. All advertising materials, journal articles and documentation > > mentioning features derived from or use of the Software must display > > the following acknowledgment:" > > > > This is a restriction on use which renders it non free. Also it may be > > hard to follow this rule since it is not very precise, since 'mentionning > > features derived from or use' maybe understood more or less broadly. > > Aren't we overlooking the following bit: > > "In the event that the product being advertised includes an intact > distribution of the Software (with copyright and license included) then > this clause is waived." > > Which, considering the rest of the license, I think may be intended to > mean "intact" copies are exempt from the advertising clause, but any > patched or forked or derived version is stuck with the advertising > clause. But open source licenses need to allow for modification. So in this scope we don't care about intact copies :) > Or not. At any rate, it confuses the hell out of me (it doesn't define > what an "intact" copy is, but then IANAL), changing it to something less > confusing and more free couldn't hurt. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpT1VgGiYGmP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
