From owner-freebsd-advocacy Thu Mar 18 1:56:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from pike.cdrom.com (pike.cdrom.com [204.216.28.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B457153D9 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 01:56:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rab@pike.cdrom.com) Received: from pike.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by pike.cdrom.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA09798; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 01:57:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903180957.BAA09798@pike.cdrom.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: rab@pike.cdrom.com Subject: BSD advertising clause In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:14:06 PST." <99585.921726846@zippy.cdrom.com> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 01:57:34 -0800 From: "Robert A. Bruce" Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Jordan K. Hubbard" said... >> Can you cite this? >> >> I have a copy of the Opinion by the judge in the USL vs. UCB/BSDI >> suit, rendered in regard to the countersuit by UCB against USL, >> that states that it *is* enforceable. > >I'd have to find the folks at BSDI who originally communicated this to >me - it was a couple of years ago, so I make no guarantees, I simply >know that they had it "vetted" by a lawyer and that's what he said. I saw an article a while ago by a law professor from Berkeley who felt it was invalid. I don't remember her name, and I can't find the article, but as I recall, she made two arguements: 1. It violates the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. Anyone has a right to mention things like features and use of software, and you cannot use copyright conditions to deprive someone of these rights. 2. It constitues "restraint of trade", because it puts conditions not only on the party doing the copying, but also on third parties such as distributors and resellers. In the US, once you sell a product, you cannot put any conditions on how it will be sold, such as price levels, discounts, channels, or advertising restrictions. That is collusion and restraint of trade. The "advertising clause" is probably unenforcable. But that doesn't seem to matter, since no one seems interested in enforcing it anyway. The only effect it has is to provide ammunition to detractors of the BSD license, and maybe enough legal uncertainty to convince a few people to avoid using BSD software. I have never talked to anyone who thinks it is a good idea. We should try to get it revoked. -bob To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message