[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 Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:19:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Some require it in the "end-user documentation" (Apache), which seems
> > > stronger.
> > 
> > That's a problem, then.
> The full clause:
> 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
>    if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
>       "This product includes software developed by the
>        Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
>    Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
>    if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
> Some discussion on this down in one of the other threads observed
> that "may appear in the software itself" does clearly include
> /usr/share/doc/foo/copyright, or wherever the license text is--it
> doesn't say "in the binary itself".  So, if this interpretation is
> valid, it's still an annoying verbatim requirement, but without
> contamination issues.

How does the ASF interpret the clause?

G. Branden Robinson                |     I'm a firm believer in not drawing
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     trend lines before you have data
branden@debian.org                 |     points.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Tim Ottinger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: