On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 10:09, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright > >> > holder(s) > >> > * and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote > >> > * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written > >> > * authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s). > >> > >> That's clearly GPL-incompatible -- I don't know that that's a problem > >> for the relevant code, but I'd imagine it would be for *some* X code. > > > > Huh ? It just says that you are not allowed to use the name of the author > > for > > promotion and such ? How is that GPL incompatible ? > > It's an additional restriction, and thus conflicts with GPL 6.
It's written into US copyright law and so is a no-op. Tt doesn't conflict with anything. > >> I think it's right on the border of freedom, but on the non-free side > >> of that border. It prohibits some true statements -- if I'm trying to > >> sell some kiosk to a third party, and he asks me who wrote the > >> autoconfig code, I *can't tell him*. That seems pretty weird, in a > >> situation in which I allegedly have freedom. > > > > Well you could tell him to look at the copyright notice of the software ? > > Yes, I could, but I can't make some true statements! That can't be free. Then US copyright law prevents any licenses from being free. Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and useless, it's here. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
