> > >and the 'obnoxious advertising clause'
> > >seemingly puts a stop to it..
> > 
> > I understand that 'obnoxious advertising clause' is the 
> phrase used by
> > the FSF to describe this type of license clause, however I wonder
> > whether you (personally, or as an organisation) really find it to be
> > 'obnoxious'?
> > 
> > Personally, I am *happy* to respect clause 4.
> 
> Please, don't try to critize the FSF just for the fun of it.

I did not intend any fun, nor criticism.
 
> Have you read the FSF's comment about the original 'obnoxious 
> advertising
> clause' ? The problem is a practical one, and a real one: The old BSD
> license said that, if you incorporated their code in your 
> product, every
> advertisement for your product had to carry this line:
> 
>      This product includes software developed by the University of
>      California, Berkeley and its contributors.

Yes, but thats *not* what the ZPL clause 4 says.

ZPL says you only need to include the acknowledgement in an
advertisement "mentioning features derived from or use of
this software".

As I read this you need not include the acknowlegement if
your advertisement:
a. does not mention features derived from Zope
b. does not mention that it uses Zope



_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to