Subject: Re: vi update?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 02/22/2000 23:33:13
>> The only way for us to drop the advertizing clauses is to either
>> re-write the files from scratch, or get the author to drop the
>> advertizing clause. Note that Berkeley has done the latter. :-)
> Could somebody clarify this for me:
> Is even the "you must include this notice in your documentation"
> clause allowable under the GPL?
Not as of the version of the GPL I found when I looked in
/usr/src/gnu/dist in a handy NetBSD source tree; I think it was version
2. It required that the other code be distributable under the GPL
itself. This is incompatible with any restrictions not imposed by the
GPL - such as advertising clauses such as are under discussion here.
> I see no reason why it would be no more or less onerous, when looked
> at from the standpoint of the GPL, unless the GPL makes a special
As near as I can tell, the GPL is not so much interested in what is or
isn't onerous as in what does or doesn't Spread The Religion. (Whether
this is good or bad is something I see no point in attempting to
discuss on a NetBSD list.)
This is why the GPL is utterly incompatible with BSD-style licenses.
Given the "any future version", if they do relax the GPL in the future
it will then retcon all past GPLed code, but I don't really expect
that. (I'd love to be proven wrong. :)
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B