Glenn Maynard wrote: > What about the old Apache license: > > 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. > > A lot of other software uses this, eg. Subversion. It has three problems: > it gives a verbatim text (eg. no translations, can't fix or remove the URL > if it becomes outdated); requires it in the "end-user documentation", which > I believe is stronger than the X11 license's "supporting documentation"; and > it accumulates, if code is used from several projects with this type of > clause. > (The "alternatively" lessens the "end-user documentation" problem, but only if > there's a place for acknowledgments--there may not be, eg. on embedded > devices.)
IMHO, "end-user documentation" refers to any documentation shipped to the end-user, including /usr/share/doc/*/copyright. As long as the documentation file is shipped to the user (the INSTALL file wouldn't work, for example), it should qualify as "end-user documentation". If the license really required it to appear in a piece of documentation suitable to show end-users how to operate the software, then the software would not be distributable at all if no such documentation existed. I seriously doubt that is the intent of the license. - Josh Triplett
