Re: CMU LTI Licence
Thibaut Paumard <mlotpot.news@free.fr> writes:
> Le 22 janv. 10 à 11:49, Ben Finney a écrit :
> >> ## 5. Any commercial, public or published work that uses this data
> >> ## ## must contain a clearly visible acknowledgment as to the ## ##
> >> provenance of the data. ##
> >
> > I don't really know what this means. It clearly places a restriction
> > on a field of endeavour (“commercial, public or published work”),
> > but I don't know whether it violates DFSG §6. Other opinions
> > required.
>
> I don't think it is a restriction.
It clearly is a restriction: it's a limit placed on the granted
freedoms, that applies to “commercial, public or published work”.
What is at question is whether the restriction still leaves the work
acceptably free.
> It's simply stating a second time that the authors of the original
> work must be acknowledged and it specifies that this acknowledgement
> must be "clearly visible". That simply means that in our copyright
> file as well as any "About" dialog, you need to state that some data
> comes from the Carnegie Mellon University.
My concern is whether, contrary to the favourable interpretation you
give, this is intended to act like an obnoxious advertising clause.
In other words, what will satisfy “contain” in “contain a clearly
visible acknowledgement”? Is it sufficient for the acknowledgement to be
“clearly visible” only after inspecting various files in the source
code?
Or is the copyright holder's intent that the acknowledgement be clearly
visible to every recipient, even those who receive a non-source form of
the work? The latter would be a non-free restriction, like the obnoxious
advertising clause in the older BSD licenses.
This looks, as it is currently worded, more like a lawyerbomb now that I
consider it. I would appreciate input on this from legally-trained
minds.
--
\ “We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, |
`\ disgraces anyone who would claim it.” —Sam Harris, _The End of |
_o__) Faith_, 2004 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: