From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Bokovoy To: devel@altlinux.ru Message-ID: <20010918185159.H11048@pc152.belcaf.minsk.by> Mail-Followup-To: devel@altlinux.ru Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i-nntp2 Subject: [devel] [samba-technical@thewrittenword.com: Re: [Fwd: OpenLDAP Licence v.2.6]] Sender: devel-admin@linux.iplabs.ru Errors-To: devel-admin@linux.iplabs.ru X-BeenThere: devel@linux.iplabs.ru X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: devel@linux.iplabs.ru List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: ALT Linux Team Developers mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:51:59 +0300 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:51:59 +0300 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: ----- Forwarded message from samba-technical@thewrittenword.com ----- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:19:09 -0500 From: samba-technical@thewrittenword.com To: Simo Sorce Cc: samba-technical@samba.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: OpenLDAP Licence v.2.6] On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:54:53AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote: > This is what FSF think of OpenLDAP v2.6 > It is near to be ok! FYI, the latest OpenLDAP license, 2.7, is now compatible with the GPL. This applies to OpenLDAP 2.0.14. > Simo. > > Free Software Foundation wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:27:12PM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > > > > On the fsf web site, in the icense list OpenLDAP Licence v 2.3 is marked as NOT > > > > compatible with GPL. > > > > > > > > The last release of OpenLDAP License is 2.6 and it is a bit different from 2.3 > > > > Do anyone know if this new version is still incompatible with GPL or not? > > > > > > Don't know without checking. > > > licensing@gnu.org is the right place to ask so that the page can be updated. > > > (cc pointing to it). > > > > It's better, but section 4 still needs some work: > > > > 4. The names and trademarks of the authors and copyright holders > > must not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, > > use or other dealing in this Software without specific, written > > prior permission. > > > > Compare to the modified BSD license (which is compatible): > > > > 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote > > products derived from this software without specific prior written > > permission. > > > > I'm assuming here that OpenLDAP is not a trademark. If it is, then I don't need > > the following scenario - the problem should be obvious. > > > > Imagine that Linus Torvalds contributed code to OpenLDAP. Now you want > > to say "Our program uses OpenLDAP code and runs on GNU/Linux." Since Linux is > > a trademark of Linus Torvalds, you can't do that. > > > > Now, if it said "endorse or promote", that would be better, because then you > > could reasonanbly talk about the software, so long as you didn't say, "OpenLDAP > > thinks FooProduct is great!" (which would be false advertising and would be > > disallowed anyway). > > > > As soon as I get a login on the webserver, I will update the license list to > > cover this. > > > > If you know the OpenLDAP authors, and can convince them to change this, that > > would be fabulous. > > > > -- > > -David "Novalis" Turner, > > Licensing Question Volunteer, > > Free Software Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > > Discussion mailing list > > Discussion@fsfeurope.org > > http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > -- > Simo Sorce > ---------- > Una scelta di liberta': Software Libero. > A choice of freedom: Free Software. > http://www.softwarelibero.it -- albert chin (china@thewrittenword.com) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- / Alexander Bokovoy $ cat /proc/identity >~/.signature `Senior software developer and analyst for SaM-Solutions Ltd.` --- Nobody knows the trouble I've been. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@linux.iplabs.ru http://www.logic.ru/mailman/listinfo/devel