On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause, > which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern --- > to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other > software, for example.]
It does seem beyond basic copyright, and in EULA/contract territory. After all, copyright law doesn't prohibit mentioning features and use of copyrighted material in advertising material (as far as I know), which BSD#4 tries to limit. I wonder: if a court finds that a condition was unenforcable, and lacking a clause like GPL#7, would the individual clause or the entire license be considered invalid? If the latter, licenses with unenforcable clauses should probably be considered non-free, as the license could be terminated as a result. -- Glenn Maynard
