Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:36:13 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> Cc: lcremean@tidalwave.net, brett@lariat.org, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, licia@o-o.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: BSD license (was: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release)) Message-ID: <19990210093613.B86778@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199902091617.LAA10735@y.dyson.net>; from John S. Dyson on Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 11:17:20AM -0500 References: <19990208141042.A2652@tidalwave.net> <199902091617.LAA10735@y.dyson.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 9 February 1999 at 11:17:20 -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: > The standard BSD license is already poison pilled. In fact, it is quite fair > by requiring attribution. Just be sure to provide an extra 20-30K of CDROM > space for attribution. :-). Whatever came of the UCB/System V lawsuit about attribution? The BSD-derived System V sources I've seen don't even have the license in them. > One other reason for not publicizing the use of BSD code, is the > advertisment clause. That is actually a disadvantage. It's also vague. On the one hand you have to state that the code includes BSD-derived code, on the other hand you can't use it for advertising. Where's the distinction? Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990210093613.B86778>