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

Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:19:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > A clause which says you must credit the original author using the
> > following text, is not okay.
> >
> > That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the
> > licenses we are confronted with (it's the counterpart to "say WHAT you
> > want, not HOW you want it" - licenses should be specifications, not
> > solutions).
> By the way, this is also a bit of an overgeneralization--lots of
> licenses specify what text must be used, eg. the original 4-clause
> BSD license:
> "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."

Yeah, well, I've always said this makes the 4-clause BSD license

It's a rule of thumb anyway, not a bright-line test (the desert island
test is a good example of a bright-line test). You're supposed to
think when applying rules like this; they're just reference points.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: