Andreas Bombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:54:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > > In any case, they could write their own license which is basically the > > GPL with this added restriction. That might even be DFSG-free, though > > the use restriction makes it annoying. It would also be incompatible > > with anything else under the GPL. > > It wouldn't be DFSG free, since the advertising is required for > commercial users (violates DFSG 6, no discrimination against fields of > endeavour).
The license seems to say that it is required for all users, not just commercial ones. In any case, I'm not convinced that it would be DFSG-free. I just can't think of any reason it wouldn't be. > > Phrasing it as a request would be much more polite, and wouldn't > > require surgery on the GPL. I don't know exactly what this software > > does, but they could also have the software insert the phrase into the > > output, much like Latex2HTML does. > > This is software to design hardware. So it is quite unclear how that > requirement should be fulfilled. > > Mention in the docs? In advertisement? On the chip package? On the > die? I was thinking that it would go onto whatever the output of the program is. Presumably that is then turned into a chip. The notice would then end up on the die. This wouldn't inform the end-user, but it would inform anyone who is modifying the design. You're right, though, in that it is probably not what the authors would like. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
