On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 11:29:18AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Of course it'd be different:
>
>Ok.
>
>> the case never had any merit in the first place:
>
>Case?
Switch (license)
case LBL: {}
case OpenSSL: {}
case Apache:
case default: {}
>> Apache uses a MODIFIED BSDL: clause 3 only applies to end-user
>> docs.
>
>Here's clause 3 of apache's license.
?!
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> * software must display the following acknowledgment:
> * "This product includes software developed by the Apache Group
> * for use in the Apache HTTP server project (http://www.apache.org/)."
>
>I don't have a clue where you get "only applies to end-user docs."
http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt
* 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.
Perhaps we're looking at different licenses: I'm using v1.1, presumably
changed sometime last year from the copyright date.
>> copyright law has no provision for the amount of a copyrighted object
>> used once a certain threshold is met, and neither should Debian.
>
>I don't have a clue why you bring this up.
Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
then what is it? This is very germane: I am operating under the
[unrefuted, so far] assumption that Debian is already mentioning another
organization in it's advertising, so it shouldn't be too much of a burden
to follow up on this by fulfilling the clause 3 terms in the 4 clause
BSDL. In fact, it really isn't a burden at all, rather it's a duty
imposed by both law and moral imperative. In fact, I'd say that Debian
was already remiss in not spreading the credit around before this point.
The fact that it has become an issue should be a matter of great concern
not from the legal standpoint but from the ethical one: it should have
never been allowed to become an issue because Debian should've been giving
credit where it was due all along. In fact, I really wonder if your
"advertising boilerplate" might not be a good idea, especially if a few
parties that Debian wasn't required by license to put in were
included: figure a list of contibutors (a dozen? two?) that rotated
through all upstream contributors and always managed to include the 4
clause BSDL requirements.
Debian--
Portions of code were provided by the following parties:
The Apache Foundation
The GNU Foundation
The Regents of the University of California at Berkeley
The XFree86 Project
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories
Silicon Graphics Inc.
Hewlett Packard, Inc.
Wietse Venema
Daniel J Bernstein
Eric A Young
The KDE Team
Marty Roesch
Raul Miller
and others...
I figure a random sampling including at least one corp, three or so
individuals, two or three large projects, one DD, and the 4-clause group.
If you noticed, this could also have some side benefits: I specifically
included DJB in my sample--this may have the effect of calming down some
longstanding grudges. Think of it as a rotating hall of fame (or, if they
don't want to be associated with Debian, a rotating hall of shame :).
>More generally, I don't have a clue what your point is.
That it's the right thing to do to include a sampling of contributors
every time Debian's mentioned, not just a legally correct thing to do.
Tell me it didn't give you a thrill to be mentioned in just that
admittedly stacked sample: now think if that went out on a national ad,
and it wasn't because I was trying to make a point, but because your
number came up... Isn't that feeling worth the trouble? Thinking that
your contribution is valued every bit as much as HP's, SGI's, or Apache's?
>Thanks,
>
>
--
Customer: "I'm running Windows '98" Tech: "Yes." Customer:
"My computer isn't working now." Tech: "Yes, you said that."
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
