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 > >statement > >in "advertising materials". > > I disagree. It's usually in any of the "supporting documentation" vs. > in all of the advertising materials. The distinction is in whether the "supporting documentation" or "advertising materials" are derived works of the licensed Work or not. In other words, it doesn't matter what $FOO is, > i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation > /usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway. We have imposed that requirement upon ourselves[1]. We should not be forced into it. That we have to distribute the copyright notice and license statement, which is a reasonable requirement, is not the same thing as requiring us to distribute them in a particular way. There is a reasonable expectation that we will not attempt to obfuscate or obscure such information. The fact that we have chosen to implement a standardized location on a per-package basis for it provides us a defense against accusations of doing so. Needless to say, some folks feel that presenting such statements in a form and manner less jarring than a TV commercial or music video fails to afford them sufficient recognition. I do not believe the consensus of this mailing list is in congruence with that sentiment. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile -- G. Branden Robinson | Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, Debian GNU/Linux | and I have disposable income that branden@debian.org | I'll spend to find out how to get http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | people more of it. -- Penn Jillette
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature