Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
> >documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim
> >in "advertising materials".
> I disagree. It's usually in any of the "supporting documentation" vs.
> in all of the advertising materials.
> i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation
> /usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway.
Some require it in the "end-user documentation" (Apache), which seems
stronger. (The copyright file isn't really for end users, since you
shouldn't have to accept free licenses to use free software.) The real
intent of that wording seems to be eg. manuals.