On Mar 18, 2004, at 21:43, Jan Wieck wrote:
> This is exactly the point. The advertising clause "had" to go. Now the
> BSD license is what it (IMHO) always was supposed to be. Making the
> source code usable for everyone and every purpose, except to sue the
> developers.
Heh. Lots of packages still have advertising-type clauses in them that
were borrowed (in concept at least) from the original BSD license - the
PHP license and 1.0/1.1 of the Apache license jump to mind.
>> Appearing right next to the License name of what? The modified
>> bundle's
>> COPYING file? The top of each source files? Should it make mention
>> of
>> the entire mysql license? Does it still apply to entire "bundles"?
>> What about things that link to things that link to things that
>> include
>> mysql server bits? Do they need to warn that the package contains
>> nuts,
>> as well? :)
>
> There is the problem. At the first place in the chain, where it is not
> made totally clear that "this binary version of BAZBAR is FOOBAR
> licensed but contains differently licensed libraries, inherited from
> the included FOOFOO package, that are not fully compliant to the
> FOOBAR license distribution terms! Please refer to the MyFOO license
> terms for details of redistributing any rebundled, relinked or
> otherwise combined packages containing this binary BAZBAR package",
> the whole thing goes belly up.
Hrm. Now that I think about this a bit more, how is this that different
from dealing with any other software package. You always need to check
out the licensing requirements. For example, you don't see big warnings
on PHP that says:
CAUTION: Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the
following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available
from <http://www.php.net/>".
For the majority of users it does not matter because they never
distribute the application - they only receive applications built with
it. The only group that cares are developers who need to be smart
enough to read license terms anyway!
Cheers!
--zak
