> > >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
> 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
As I read this you need not include the acknowlegement if
a. does not mention features derived from Zope
b. does not mention that it uses Zope
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -