John writes:
> It places a requirement on those who "base research on SWI-Prolog and
> publish on this research" that it does not place on others. I suspect
> that the authors really meant that they want credit when portions of
> their work are included in the publication. Why not try to convinc
John wrote:
> The advertising clause applies only to distribution. The SWI clause
> appears to apply to mere use.
Here is the clause in question:
6. If you base research on SWI-Prolog and publish on this research,
you must include appropriate acknowledgements and references to
Dear legal crowd,
Summary: The question is whether the program HUGS released under Perl's
"Artistic" license can be distributed in "main" in a version linked with
libreadline which is GPL'd.
Let me be absolutely clear: we do *not* want to mess up this situation.
Thus we do *not* want to send *any
Anthony Towns gives a good analysis:
> All the rumours /I've/ heard, says that the Artistic license isn't GPL
> compatible. This probably doesn't mean much, though.
>
> [...]
>
> The non-GPL bit is, I presume, section 4 of the Artistic license:
>
> ``You may distribute executables provided:
>
>
Dear all,
ObPrivate: I'd like a discussion about how we can exploit the $1999
advertisement fee on Debian lists. (I'll leave it to debian-legal to
figure out if the fee is legally valid. :)
I received this mail six (6) times so we could invoice could invoice this
company $11,994! Just too good
5 matches
Mail list logo
