On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote: > 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. Err, yes. I probably should have picked a better phrase there. I meant that it's an "advertising clause" in the since that you have to advertise that you're using X-Open stuff, but not in the sense that you have to talk about it in advertising. > 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". Yes. That's actually one of the interpretations I kept running into when I was thinking about the new XFree86 license. I'm just a bit wary about declaring that clause a no-op because it's so ambiguously worded,[1] and I'm not entirely sure when the alternative applies. Don Armstrong 1: Does anyone actually know who wrote this clause? -- When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -- Emo Philips. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature