Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

[Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>]

On 04-Dec-98, 07:29 (CST), john@dhh.gt.org wrote: 
> Steve Greenland writes:
> > How is this significantly different than the advertising clause? One
> > says "If you base your software on my software, you must credit me".
> > The other says "If you use my software for publicized work, you must
> > credit me."
> 
> The advertising clause applies only to distribution.  The SWI clause
> appears to apply to mere use.

So the SWI clause is actually *more* restrictive! And as others have
pointed out, the BSD advertising clause only applies if you explicitly
mention the BSD derived software.

My point was why is the SWI clause acceptable for free software (as Ian
seemed to imply), and the BSDish clause not? 

If anybody cares, my opinion is that both are acceptable. License
requirements that make it difficult or awkward to distribute or use
software don't make it unfree. If the requirements become too onerous,
then someone will eventually write a replacement with less restrictive
requirements. Yes, I would like a statement in the DFSG (or associated
document) saying that such clauses are bad and why, but they shouldn't
become absolute requirements.

Steve