On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 09:19:24AM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stefan Sperling:
> > In any case, it had an advertising clause. Quote:
> > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
> > if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
> > "This product includes software developed by
> > CollabNet (http://www.Collab.Net/)."
> > Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
> > if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
> This is not *the* advertizing clause. It is considered compatible
> with the GPL. Similar clauses exist in the MIT and revised BSD
> licenses ("provided that the above copyright notice appear in all
> copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice
> appear in supporting documentation").
You're correct, this is not the advertising clause.
The advertising clause has the word "advertising" in it. Sorry.
I checked again and diffed the licence of Subversion 1.6.x to both the
Apache 1.0 and Apache 1.1 licences.
Apache 1.0 does have an advertising clause.
Apache 1.1 does not have an advertising clause, but has "strong
prohibitions on the use of Apache-related names" which is not
GPL-compatible according to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
The licence of Subversion 1.6 has equivalent "strong prohibitions on the
use of Tigris-related names".
So the FSF is still being inconsistent when they say that the licence of
Subversion 1.6 was compatible with the GPL. Not because of the advertising
clause, but because of the trademark protection provisions in the licence.
Thanks for correcting,
Received on 2009-09-28 14:44:46 CEST