OT: BSD License ?

[Ove Kaaven]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Marcus Meissner wrote:

> > > > If Microsoft picked up some of the code in Wine ,
> > > I doubt this will happen ;)
> > 	I just picked Microsoft for effect ..
> > 
> >  
> > > > wouldn't they need to
> > > > include the copyright , permissions notice, and the authors list? It
> > > > looks like the license isn't clear as to where the Copyright needs to be
> > > > displayed? Could anyone clear this up?
> > > 
> > > The X11 license we use does not require you to do so. This is intentional.
> > 
> > 	What was the reason for using the X11 license as opposed to a BSD
> > license? 
> 
> We switched from the BSD license to the X11 license on 2000/4/24
> to enable commercial companies to be able to include WINE into their
> products.

Not exactly. I don't remember whether the Wine license was identical to
the BSD license (it may not have been), but the big reason was that it was
incompatible with the GPL. The BSD license doesn't prohibit a company from
using the code (if they give credit where credit is due, which they do
with any licensed technologies anyway), rather its "advertising clause" is
a restriction that the GPL does not have, so Wine could not be linked with
GPL-ed software if it used the BSD license, which would be too bad...