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 questionable. 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