[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [htdig-dev] Licensing issues...

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:47:58PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 03:03:25PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > [on the 4-clause BSD license's compelled-advertising clause being
> > > GPL-incompatible]
> >
> > Really, there are so many good reasons to drop that clause that I don't
> > grasp why some folks refuse to (when asked; I certainly understand why they
> > wouldn't necessarily care enough to bother if nobody has ever requested it
> > and they haven't gotton to making sure that ti's doable for their code).
> > 
> > Sadly, I have run into a few. Some in distressingly pivotal locations.
> > 
> > (There is the counter-argument that if the clause is a no-op due to laws
> > already enforcing it, as is often argued when asking to drop it, that it is
> > not a 'meaningful' extra restriction, and shouldn't be considered to make
> > it incompatible, but that's really a huge, nasty can of worms I'd rather
> > not even get into, in part because I don't pretend to know enough to
> > grasp which jurisdictions it might apply in.)
> That's reasoning for the no-endorsement clause ("Neither the name of the
> University ..."), not the compelled-advertising clause ("must display the
> following acknowledgement ..."), right?  (For the no-endorsement clause,
> that's reasoning that most people seem to accept, at least.)
> (I've always felt those two clauses are conflicting, since the acknowledgement
> is promotion, too.  "Don't use our name to promote products, but you must
> use our name in your advertisements"?  Huh?)

One of the primarily reasons given for "forced ack" clauses is a fear of
other folks quietly filing off the serial numbers and absconding with it,
giving the impression of having created it.

The no-op involved is that material misrepresentation for benefit is, in
most jurisdictions, going to fall under 'fraud' even without the more
obvious step of actually failing to acknowledge when there's a requirement.

Or so goes the general gist; I won't claim to be able to fathom the position
particularly well, and may be missing some detail.
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter                                      : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
http://nienna.lightbearer.com/                                         `-

Attachment: pgpbmdLWKOLmR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: