On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 10 feb 2006, at 09:48, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Take a look at Stallman's page about FreeBSD license and how freebsd
"advertises
Berkley and California unreasonably" or whatever. Personally I'm more of a
FreeBSD
style guy and I might even switch to FreeBSD over linux because of
religion.
That page is a load of b*s*, because the LGPL requires just the same:
your program must show the LGPL.
Of course you must show the license, but requiring all derived works to link
to your web page in a readme or about box is something completely different.
I fail to see the difference. If you must include the LGPL, then
automatically you must identify which parts of the program are under
the GPL (Assuming you don't want everything to be GPL) , which amounts
to saying 'I used XYZ from ABC'. Whether this is as a link to ABC's
website or not is just a detail. The idea is the same.
This sort of advertising clause is in fact incompatible with both the GPL and
the LGPL. That's why the advertising clause in the new XFree86 license was so
controversial, and why the X.Org fork was created.
Hm.
I'm currently in discussion with someone else about it, as well, so I'll
risk the following question:
Can you explain WHY it is incompatible. I don't see why it is
incompatible with the (L)GPL. Different, maybe. But incompatible ?
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
