Re: Intent to package moxa radius
In message <[🔎] 199804222235.SAA02443@hmm.nowhere>,
Igor Grobman writes:
>> In article <[🔎] 199804201143.HAA16854@hmm.nowhere> igor wrote:
> >a new license yet, but here it is:
>> >
>> >/* =====================================================================
>> > * Copyright (c) 1998 Moxa Technologies Corp, LTD. All rights reserved.
>> [...]
>> > * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
>> > * software must display the following acknowledgment:
>> > * "This product includes software developed by the Moxa Technologies
>> > * Corp, LTD. for use in the Moxa RADIUS Server (http://www.moxa.com/)."
>>
>> Urk! It's the Obnoxious BSD Advertising Clause, back to haunt us.
>>
>> Including the OBSDAC would make Moxa non-free. Please educate them
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My mistake; I didn't reread the DFSG before posting. Sorry for the FUD.
>> about that, too, and suggest they use an XFree86-like licence rather
>> than this BSD-like one.
>
>I don't understand. We haven't declared all BSD software non-free yet, have
>we? How come moxa doesn't fit the bill. It has the exact same clause. I
>seem to remember a long discussion on -devel, but didn't we conclude that this
>
>BSD clause doesn't make software non-free?
>
>Anyway, could you explain to me how this advertising clause is so harmful?
I don't remember any prior discussion of this on debian-devel -- so it
was probably before I joined Debian...
For the full rant, you should probably read RMS's recent article in
gnu.misc.discuss; subject "What's Wrong with the BSD License", message-id
<199804170609.AAA27862@wijiji.santafe.edu>
The gist is this: most of the "obnoxious" advertising clauses in
BSD-ish software specify a different sentence which must be mentioned
on advertising mentioning the software. This means that if I build
a distribution with lots of BSD software in it, there are likely to
be a lot of different sentences I must include on my advertisements
(or I must restrict myself as to how many features I mention in any
one advertisement, so as to reduce the number of sentences I must
include). RMS says he counted 75 different sentences in one of the
BSD distributions.
I've just looked over the DFSG again, and I can't see any restriction
against using an Obnoxious BSD Advertising Clause, so its presence does
not make the software non-free. Sorry for spreading FUD. However, I
think if you can, you should try to get the licence changed to be more
XFree86-ish and less BSD-ish, and thus help prevent the problem spreading.
--
Charles Briscoe-Smith
White pages entry, with PGP key: <URL:http://alethea.ukc.ac.uk/wp?95cpb4>
PGP public keyprint: 74 68 AB 2E 1C 60 22 94 B8 21 2D 01 DE 66 13 E2
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: