John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: > The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD > + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the > current policy on that sort of license is.
Accepted but unpopular. > Plus, it's got some other wording -- is it OK? I'm not sure. > Do any of you have any tips on what I might say > to the author regarding dropping the advertising clause? I'd look on www.fsf.org for their arguments against the BSD+ad. [...] > 4. All advertising materials, journal articles and documentation mentioning > features derived from or use of the Software must display the following > acknowledgment: This is more than just the documentation and advertising of the Software. It includes journal articles which mearly mention use of it - is that contaminating unrelated software? I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
