On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:00:17PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:45:02PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > > And, in practice, a lot of it still boils down to what the copyright holder > > views the *practical* requirements of fufilling the clause to mean. If it > > means "make sure the phrase appears in the debian/copyright file", that's > > not terribly onerous. If it means "Make sure the clause appears on your > > website in a prominent place, and on all flyers promoting Debian's presence > > at a trade show or other event", that could be a lot less practical. > > I don't think "make sure the phrase appears in the debian/copyright > file" follows from the text of the OAC. It's pretty clear: if you > mention the software in your advertising, you have to include a verbatim > piece of text, and that pretty clearly includes things like banner ads > and other places where it's simply not practical. > > If a copyright holder doesn't want to require that, then it should be > pretty easy to convince him to actually change the license, and not just > "clarify" or "interpret" the license (which gets very hairy once you > have more than one copyright holder).
I can only tell you what the people I've actually dealt with have said. If
it's "not practical", and if DFSG #10 enshrines the 4-clause BSD license as
free by fiat, then we have a much larger question looming.
One of the reasons I've spent so much time trying to convince various folks
holding copyrights and OACs in the NetBSD source tree to relicense under a
3-clause.
--
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
