On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote: >On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote: >> If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court of law, then I >> would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh >> (http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA): >> >> In Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,91 the Supreme >> Court made clear that copyright law is substantively constitutional: >> the First Amendment does not shield speech that infringes another's >> copyright.92 Copyright, the Court said, is itself an "engine of free >> expression" because it "supplies the economic incentive to create and >> disseminate ideas."93 > >Bleah. > >Ok, if the advertising clause in enforcable, then I think we've got >a problem. > >We declare (in the social contract) that the BSD license is a DFSG >license. To my knowledge, we don't have any mechanism in place to meet >the advertising requirement of the original BSD license (nor that of >similar licenses, such as Apache). > >If what you're saying is correct, I see several choices: > >[1] Modify Debian policy and procedures so that we have an "advertising >boilerplate" for every distribution, with a line for every package which >has an advertising clause. [Lots of work.]
Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it Debian GNU/Linux. You see, the GPL doesn't have the ad clause, yet Debian's acknowledging the GNU project's contribution: where's the problem is doing this for others where the licenses require it? I find a requirement to do something as distasteful as you, but This is more like a requirement to tip your hat to everybody, not just the pretty girls (no offense meant to anyone :): they're requiring Debian to do something it's doing for others. Besides, it IS the Right Thing To Do: Let Debian be the moral leadership of the community again: this time by taking an active stance toward giving credit where credit is due rather than protracted licensing battles that stain both parties. >[2] Modify the DFSG (so that it specifies the modified BSD license in >the example of DFSG licenses, and indicates that requiring people to >do extra work not normally associated with handling of software is just >as bad as requiring payment of a fee) and remove the offending packages >from the distribution. [Lots of work, lots of time.] Also drop the existing credit where credit is due: if you're going to say it's "too much work", you'd best follow through with proof. Also see my response to point 4 as to the feasability... >[3] Pretend that what we're doing is perfectly legal and wait for the >eventual explosion. [Disgusting] Also just wrong: failing to give credit where credit is due is moraly reprehensible, especially when legally required to do so. >[4] Convince every author of such software to change their license. >[Lots of work, lots of time, may not be doable.] Probably won't be: OpenSSL would be a serious PITA, and I doubt that Debian could survive removal of all things dependent on OpenSSL (putting in non-free is for all intents and purposes removal). > -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]