Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:04:04 -0600
From:      Dan MacMillan <flowers@users.sourceforge.net>
To:        Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, Danny MacMillan <flowers@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   RE: [OT] Sapir-Whorfian Advertising Clause (was Advertising clausein license)
Message-ID:  <FGEIJLCPFDNMGDOKNBABIEPODFAA.flowers@users.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEIFEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > From: Danny MacMillan
> >
> > Be that as it may, the term "advertising clause" seems strictly
> > definitive, as it pertains to a clause that refers to advertising.
> > That much at least seems obvious from what Nell fgrep'd for.  I
> > don't disagree with the substance of your point, but it is counter-
> > productive to redefine language to suit one's political agenda.
>
> No it is not.  People find it productive to redefine language to
> suit their political agenda all the time.
>
> The original term out of the license was not "advertising clause". The
> original term, right out of the license, was "acknowledgement"

I can only refer you to the license itself, which contains both
"advertising" and "acknowledgement":

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
   must display the following acknowledgement:
     This product includes software developed by the University of
     California, Berkeley and its contributors.

> The GPL crowd found themselves sounding like a bunch of ungrateful
> spoiled brats when they originally tried telling people the BSD license
> was bad because it "had a clause that required you to acknowledge the
> copyright holders"
>
> So, they did a bit of creative doublespeak and came up with the
> slur "advertising clause"
>
> Since advertising is associated with commercial activities, this
> carried an instant negative connotation in the free software
> community.  The GPL bigots didn't even have to explain what an advertising
> clause was, the mere presense of the word "advertising" was enough to set
> people against the acknowledgement clause.
>
> Notice how just changing the term back to the real term "acknowledgement
> clause" removes the negative connotation and lets the truth of
> what it really is show through?
>
> You are very naieve if you think that words and phrases don't carry
> negative connotations, or by chance are you in the habit of using
> terms like "nigger", Danny boy?
>
> The very name FreeBSD was defined to suit a political agenda.  While
> you may not like living in a world that uses language as a weapon,
> that's the kind of world most people live in, and you better get
> used to operating in it.
>
> Ted

You're bringing a lot of baggage to this discussion.

As long as people focus on what the words are instead of what they
mean they will always be easy prey to the next group of "bigots"
that walk through the door.  That was my sole point.

Let's consider language as a weapon for a moment.  You paint your-
self as a knee-jerk reactionary by using emotionally charged
pejoratives like "GPL bigots" and "Linux bigots".  You further
marginalize yourself through the use of dismissive diminutives
like "Danny boy".  These are tactics that may be effective if your
goal is to ridicule someone, but not if you want to communicate.
By employing them, you make it easy for outside observers to
pigeonhole you into a mental category and discount your arguments
and your point of view, regardless of their essential merit.  That
portrays neither you nor FreeBSD in a positive light.

To the other list readers, I apologize for the increasingly
irrelevant diversion.  This is the last word you will hear from
me on the subject.

--
Danny



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FGEIJLCPFDNMGDOKNBABIEPODFAA.flowers>