[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)]

On 4/7/2016 4:48 PM, Mike Small wrote:
> You're misreading or my sentence is ambiguous.

Possible. Maybe likely. Read the documents I linked before continuing to
try to second guess me trying to second guess you.


> Well, I meant the BSD, MIT, ISC, Apache, etc. licenses here. In other
> words non-copyleft licenses. Those are what I was thinking of as roughly
> functionally equivalent to CC BY in the main.

Not really. The CC licenses are better suited for scientific and
artistic works (papers, journals and such) than software licenses, and
they provide some of the best attribution terms for authors.


> When rms discusses onerous advertising he's referring to the clause in
> the original 4 clause BSD license (and if he were here he'd take me to
> task for earlier typing "the BSD [license]" as if there were only
> one). That issue wasn't one of mentioning people in the changes file or
> source files but of requiring lists of organizations to appear in your
> advertising materials.

I know, but the FSF do not appear to make distinctions between 4-clause
BSD advertising and CC BY advertising. Regardless, the GNU licenses
prohibit adding terms that restrict the removal of attributions. That's
a problem in a world where recognition is so highly prized.

-- 
Rich P.