Andrei's Google Talk

[Don]

Gary Whatmore wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:46:19 -0400, Bruno Medeiros  
>> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/09/2010 16:13, klickverbot wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/10 5:10 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>>> I find myself wishing some more OSS projects had commercial-friendly
>>>>> licenses. :-/ In particular LLVM, as I do agree it might have been  
>>>>> great
>>>>> if Walter were able to work with it without these IP worries.
>>>> You want something even more liberal than BSD?
>>> Oh, from this discussion, I thought LLVM was GPL or LGPL, but not BSD  
>>> (or more concretely, a variant of BSD from what I see).
>>>
>>> What is the issue then of Walter taking a look at the LLVM code? It does  
>>> not seem to be the case that LLVM would send lawyers to anyone.
>> BSD includes a binary attribution clause (not sure about LLVM), which  
>> makes it undesirable license for commercial use.
> 
> ---
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> 
>    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 
>    2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials  provided with the distribution.
> ---
> 
> The way I understand this is: attach the (c) notice to the source code and to the documentation and/or other materials  provided with the distribution. 

This doesn't in any way force you to include the license in the executable.

No, but you have to include the license WITH the executable (in the 
'documentation and other materials'). Which is fine if in fact there are 
'documentation and other materials'. But it would seem to prohibit 
distribution of a bare executable.