Subject: Re: advertising clause / PKCS#11 header files
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 01:59:10 -0700

Quoting Andreas Jellinghaus (aj@dungeon.inka.de):

> opensource.org lists only the bsd license without advertising
> clause, so I wonder what you think of files with it. 

It's (obviously) OSD-compliant.  Disclaimer:  Like most people on this
mailing list, I speak for myself and most definitely not for the OSI.

>  * are these clauses compareable to the bsd advertising clause?

Well, generally.  Your scope of required notice is a bit broader.
I think the generally accepted view on OSD-compliance is that no
advertising clause yet seen has been so onerous as to substantively 
interfere with the qualities outlined in the OSD.  (I hope nobody will
take that as a challenge, but, with licensing wonks, one never knows.)

>  * might those clauses even be incompatible with other licenses?

Certainly.  You always have to watch for those.  E.g., all of Eric A.
Young's modules in OpenSSL are under the older BSD licence with
advertising clause.  Thus, some codebases such as the Exim MTA were not
lawfully redistributable with OpenSSL integration until their authors
granted licence exceptions.

-- 
Cheers,             
Rick Moen                 Support your local medical examiner:  Die strangely.
rick@linuxmafia.com