Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:23:22 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Mark Ovens <marko@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Mike Doyle <relyod@co-operation-ireland.ie>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RWS Message-ID: <20000918102322.A15156@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20000918174554.B567@parish>; from marko@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 05:45:54PM %2B0100 References: <20000916153813.H47559@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000916133833.H12955@magus.users.xmission.com> <20000916153813.H47559@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000916135840.I12955@magus.users.xmission.com> <3.0.5.32.20000918104842.0086f780@199.107.2.1> <20000918174554.B567@parish>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Mark Ovens <marko@FreeBSD.ORG> [000918 09:46] wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:48:42AM +0100, Mike Doyle wrote:
> > I was looking at the GNU website on Friday, and they still have a
> > not-very-complimentary peice about the BSD licence, even though the
> > clause in question has been removed.
> >
>
> Just remind me, what exactly was the advertising clause? ISTR that it
> was something to do with displaying a credit for the CSRG (or
> Berkeley). If that was the case, what was the FSF's gripe? Fire up
> emacs, gdb, etc. and what do you get? An advert for GNU/FSF.
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.
Which sorta stinks because if you have a television add it basically
means that at the end you need to scroll that, even worse a lot of
individuals have files under the copyright with that clause as well
so that doing a television add is pretty much a pain in the butt.
-Alfred
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000918102322.A15156>