Subject: Re: Artistic License Essay
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:17:57 +0100

Bernard Lang wrote:
>    as a consequence, in France it seems that (according to some legal
> scholars):
> 
>    GPL is OK because you exchange your rights for possible improvement
> by the community.
>    BSD type licences have no legal value since the other party
> (users/modifiers of your software) are not bound to give anything
> back.
> 
>   Interesting, isn't it ?

But that's not true for at least some BSD licences, surely:

 * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
 *    if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
 *       "This product includes software developed by the
 *        Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
 *    Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software
itself,
 *    if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.

that's giving something back, right? BTW, I believe that unilateral
licences have the same problem in the UK.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff