On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:50:03PM +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> > 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

Ooops, sorry, yes, you're right. I misread your posting.

The original BSD license indeed can be obnoxious (I hope you agree).

The ZPL has a few precautions against this (additionally to a. and b.,
there's also the exception that the clause is waived when the product
includes an 'intact Zope distribution'), so this is certainly much better
than the original BSD clause. Point taken.


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

Reply via email to