Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:52:23 -0700 From: "Dave Walton" <walton@nordicrecords.com> To: tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Berkeley removes Advertising Clause Message-ID: <19990909025443.23751.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com> In-Reply-To: <199909082349.QAA03644@usr01.primenet.com> References: <19990908044028.19574.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com> from "Dave Walton" at Sep 7, 99 09:38:10 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 Sep 99, at 23:49, Terry Lambert wrote: > > On 8 Sep 99, at 0:19, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > The "Claim Credit" clause, sometimes wrongly called > > > the advertising caluse by people who don't understand that it does > > > not invoke unless you try to claim credit for the code, > > > > I don't understand. I don't see anything conditional about clause 3. > > How is it that it only applies when you try to claim credit? > > OK. Here's my pat answer for this question, using /usr/include/stdio.h > as my example: > > 1) Do your advertising materials say: > "Uses the fantastic fileno(3) routine!" > > 2) Do your advertising materials say: > "Now, with industry standard 'stdio.h'!" > > If the answer to both of these questions is "No", then the answer > to the question "Do I have to print the acknowledgement in my > advertising materials?" is also (a profound) "No". Ah, ok. Now I get it. (Thanks also to DES). I'd still call it an advertising clause, though. If you say "Now, with industry standard 'stdio.h'!", you aren't claiming credit for it so much as advertising its presence. But I suppose it's all semantics. > I'd be happy for you to find case law proving this theory (it was > documented extensively in the slashdot discussion, by an intellectual > property lawyer), There's a rarity... A licensing discussion on slashdot that I actually want to read. Got a pointer? > but intil you do, I'm going to have to act as if > it's still a theory. Whis is kind of serendipitous, what with it > actually still being a legal theory, and all. 8-). Quite. :) I guess my confusion was in thinking it was more than theory. > The current common law in this regard allows the relicense, due > to the fact that we are treating software as if it were physical > property. This allows us to apply the docterine of "adverse use" > in order to establish what is called a "prescrptive lien" on the > "property". I'll just nod politely and pretend I understood that. :) Your examples of SleepyCat and Sendmail don't seem to quite fit the question. They are derivitive work, not unmodified code. But I'll take your word for it. > Anyway, anything other than "status quo" is hand waving until you > get it to an apellate court, so good luck getting it to an apellate > court. No thanks. That's up to someone with money. Thanks, Dave ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Walton Webmaster, Postmaster Nordic Entertainment Worldwide walton@nordicdms.com http://www.nordicdms.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990909025443.23751.qmail>