On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > >> >> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I > >> >> suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would > >> >> frown upon the request for credit. > >> > > >> > Nobody here would do so, just so you know. :-) > >> > >> Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of > >> the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about? > > > > No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues > > with those licenses. > > I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction > in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra > restrictions.
That's the "not quite" part. It's almost entirely irrelevant because "advertising clause" is just the name for this clause, and has got nothing to do with the reasons why it is a problem. I could call it the "stupid invariant section clause", which would be about as accurate, without changing anything significant about it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
