On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 10:25:48AM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote: > I'm almost sure I'm not wrong. The GPL has some problems which makes > it incompatibel with a lot of open source-licenses and the BSD-derived > licenses has not this problem.
There are two advertising related clauses in the traditional BSD license. One says "you can't use the author's names to hock your derived wares", the other says "everytime you advertise anything mentioning this software, you have to also mention <foo>". It's the latter that's termed the obnoxious BSD advertising clause, and that's considered GPL-incompatible. > Yes, I'm fully aware that I'm blaming GPL while the ordinary thing to > do is to blame the other license. How very subversive. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
