On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:19:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > A clause which says you must credit the original author using the > > > following text, is not okay. > > > > > > That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the > > > licenses we are confronted with (it's the counterpart to "say WHAT you > > > want, not HOW you want it" - licenses should be specifications, not > > > solutions). > > > > By the way, this is also a bit of an overgeneralization--lots of > > licenses specify what text must be used, eg. the original 4-clause > > BSD license: > > > > "All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software > > must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes > > software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its > > contributors." > > Yeah, well, I've always said this makes the 4-clause BSD license > questionable. > > It's a rule of thumb anyway, not a bright-line test (the desert island > test is a good example of a bright-line test). You're supposed to > think when applying rules like this; they're just reference points.
Right, hence "overgeneralization", not "wrong". This is a reasonable guideline when writing licenses, but it doesn't seem relevant to DFSG- freeness, in most cases. (To be clear, the "obnoxious advertising clause" is a different issue. All we're talking about here is "the following acknowledgement", which is used in many more licenses than the 4-clause BSD, often in much less obnoxious ways, such as "in supporting documentation".) -- Glenn Maynard
