Re: DFSG audit of X-Oz license wanted

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>

> However, before using it in Debian's XFree86 packages[2] I strongly
> suggest working with the copyright holder to remove the advertising
> clause.

This particular instance is not really an advertising clause. It just
asks for credit to be given in the shipped *documentation*, and it
only applies if such documentation already exists.

The obnoxious kinds of advertising clause applies to *advertising*
that mentions that a combined product can do foo. That is very
different from the clause in the license we're discussing here, which
only applies to documentation when the product is actually shipped.

And in fact, the clause we're discussing here seems to be materially
satisfied if only the license text itself is shipped with the binary
(which usually nobody objects to) and declared to be "end-user
documentation".

-- 
Henning Makholm          "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
                    Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
                  en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
              forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."