Raul Miller wrote:
> Eh, you haven't addressed the potential complexity of distributing
> "free" software if a thousand different people start creating
> software with advertising clauses.
What complexity? When distributing software with the advertising clause, you
have 2 simple choices:
1. Do not advertise that what you're distributing includes it.
2. Advertise and display the text it requires you display as well.
If I added 20 million peices of BSD software to debian tomorrow, we could
still describe debian as simply "a Linux system, with the gimp, mozilla, and
20.05 million other software packages.", without running afoul of the
advertising clause.
> Here's my next contribution: Assuming we permit software with advertising
> clauses in Debian, we must be responsible for creating the cannonical
> "Debian with Advertising Clauses" text, which anyone advertising Debian
> must reproduce in all their ads (they may come up with their own text,
> in which case they're clearly assuming legal responsibility for this
> issue). Currently, we're lax in this regard (which means we're possibly
> contributing to copyright violation).
>From this paragraph, I can only conclude you completly misunderstand the
advertising clause. Read the BSD license, please. You are *not* required to
dipsplay the text unless you mention the software.
3. 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.
--
see shy jo