Re: license change (all contributors please follow up)

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 11:22, Dan Winship wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 09:39 -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > Out of curiosity (I might have missed the original thread on this) why
> > is the three clause BSD license used instead of the two-clause or
> > MIT/X11 license?
> 
> The standard MIT/X11-style license has the anti-advertising clause as
> well.

Hmm, not the version I'm aware of. 
http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php  Is that a newer version
or something then?

> 
> > Anyone getting the software can opt to use the LGPL
> > license and use the organizations/contributors in advertising under that
> > license anyhow, so I don't see the clause adding anything of value
> > except a bad taste in some people's mouths who don't like that third
> > clause.  ;-)
> 
> IANAL, but my understanding is that the anti-advertising clause is not
> really a restriction, but merely a clarification. "The fact that we are
> giving you the right to distribute this software does not mean we are
> also giving you the right to use our name however you want." (Proof: if
> it was a "further restriction" on your rights, it wouldn't be
> GPL-compatible. But the FSF says it is GPL-compatible. So it is not a
> "further restriction", and the same anti-advertising rule must apply to
> GPLed software. QED.)

No, the three clause BSD license is *NOT* GPL compatible.  Only the
modified two clause license is.  See
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
 and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD

> 
> -- Dan
-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis-LAuFFeG505qL5ISr76wZmQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.