> Is proof of *existing* harm really necessary?

How can you ask such a question?  Of course it's necessary!
Otherwise, we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin.  I can tell you of two specific commercial instances where
this new license is *not* causing a problem.  Can you tell me of even
*one* where it *is*?  Not hypothetical, but real?  If you can't, why
are you wasting our time?

Nobody's trying to screw anybody over here, and anybody who really
wants to use this product can, without talking to anybody or getting
permission from anybody.  If they aren't happy with the things that
they have to do to obey the license agreement, they can talk to the
owner of the copyright and negotiate a different license.  It's that
simple.

The terms aren't terribly onerous even as they stand - I'm not
entirely convinced that Vixie Enterprises will even ask for any sort
of exemption to any of the license requirements.  We don't advertise
in magazines anyway, so it's no skin off our noses to give Chris
credit in our advertising.  The requirements of this license *ARE*
*NOT* *UNREASONABLE*.  If money-grubbing assholes like me are okay
with it, who do you expect to *not* be okay with it?  Sheesh!

			       _MelloN_