| Glenn Maynard 2004-08-02, 5:58 pm |
| On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 03:03:25PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> Really, there are so many good reasons to drop that clause that I don't
> grasp why some folks refuse to (when asked; I certainly understand why they
> wouldn't necessarily care enough to bother if nobody has ever requested it
> and they haven't gotton to making sure that ti's doable for their code).
>
> Sadly, I have run into a few. Some in distressingly pivotal locations.
>
> (There is the counter-argument that if the clause is a no-op due to laws
> already enforcing it, as is often argued when asking to drop it, that it is
> not a 'meaningful' extra restriction, and shouldn't be considered to make
> it incompatible, but that's really a huge, nasty can of worms I'd rather
> not even get into, in part because I don't pretend to know enough to
> grasp which jurisdictions it might apply in.)
That's reasoning for the no-endorsement clause ("Neither the name of the
University ..."), not the compelled-advertising clause ("must display the
following acknowledgement ..."), right? (For the no-endorsement clause,
that's reasoning that most people seem to accept, at least.)
(I've always felt those two clauses are conflicting, since the acknowledgement
is promotion, too. "Don't use our name to promote products, but you must
use our name in your advertisements"? Huh?)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|