Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> wrote:
> 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.

The scope "features or use" of a piece of software is unbounded.

It is not reasonable to presume that someone putting together an
advertisement will have deep experience with all software which has an
advertising clause, unless we make some kind of guarantee.

Guarantees I consider acceptable are:  no advertising clause, or an
comprehensive list (which the advertiser may choose to use or not).

Or maybe you expect that people will "just know" that, if they happen
to mention a popular piece of software, that they've legally obligated
themselves to present a formal announcement?

Or maybe you expect that such software will never become popular?

Or maybe you expect that only legal gurus will write advertising?

Or maybe we're just taking the approach that we don't really have to do
the right thing in this case?

I'm willing to be educated, if you can show me a better approach.

-- 
Raul