> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 1:40 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses > > > I think you have identified three separate questions: > > * Requiring credit notices in derivative works. > * Requiring credit notices in manuals. > * Requiring credit notices in advertisements. > > It is only the last of these which, we argue, causes a > practical problem. > > 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. > > This is not the advertising clause, and I have never argued > that this is harmful. >
I now understand and appreciate the distinction you are drawing. Thanks for the clarification. But I still have a concern. I have always argued that we should review and approve licenses according to a published standard. This prevents us from being (or appearing to be) arbitrary and capricious. So where in the OSD, or in the GPL, do we make it clear that potentially burdensome license requirements (however those are defined) are not allowed? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
