Subject: Re: copyright questions [was Re: A vote of thanks to Jason for being in Core]
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/13/1997 22:34:50
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> And one more time: what would you do if someone mentions in their
> promomtional material ``features'' which are clearly derived from
> *your* modified-BSD-license code, but which does *not* acknowledge you
> by name? What if your attorney says that the existing license is
> ambiguous and may be exceedingly hard to enforce in the (hypothetical)
> case at hand?
I have no problem with a requirement that mentioned features be
accompanied by appropriate credit. The problem I see with Chris's
license, is that it would require _any_ mention of NetBSD, in _any_
media to credit him. I think this is clearly excessive, and has
the potential, if 100 developers follow suit, to make NetBSD
commercially unviable. As far as the _correct_ solution? Although the
decision is for Core to make, _I_ think we would be better off if long
ago we had started requiring copyright assignment on all donated code.
It is easy, and probably desirable for all promotional materials credit
TNF. It is infeasible for every advertisement to mention every
developer who ever contributed code to the Project -- or to seek waivers
from each and every one of them.
> Any discussion of license issues __has__ to take this scenario into
> account, or it's simply not addressing the points at hand.
Cetainly. I think the main problem we are seeing here is that there
was not adequate discussion of this issue before we found ourselves
committed to a course of action.