[ On Wednesday, March 10, 1999 at 14:12:18 (-0800), Jason Thorpe wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: NetBSD Copyright 
>
> Actually, technically, "contributing to TNF" means assigning copyright.

That's a technicality I won't get into....

>  > ....  Indeed my clause should be even easier for
>  > both TNF and subsquent copyright users to adhere to -- it's something
>  > that's already being done, seemingly without much hassle (I refer to the
>  > listing of acknowledgments in the INSTALL files).
> 
> Regardless if your opinion of the TNF/UCB clause 3 vs. clause 4
> "contradiction", your clause 3 is unacceptable (IMO, and in the opinion
> of TNF, the last time I checked) because it requires attirbution in more
> cases than the TNF/UCB license does.  Period.

Technically speaking you're not only wrong about the difference between
my terms and those of the UCB-style copyright license, but you've got it
completely backwards -- at least if you compare it to the *intent*
behind my terms and perhaps not the specific wording of them (that's
what this discussion is all about -- how to make the words match the
intent in a way that will hopefully be acceptable to a court of law).

As I tried to say above, my newly proposed clause #3 is intended to
require attribution in only *one* place, whereas the UCB-style clause #3
requires attribution in *all* applicable places.

If I were to use the UCB terms then not only would TNF be required to
include my acknowledgement statement in the INSTALL document along with
the dozens of others already there, but all future copyright users of
the NetBSD distribution would *also* be required to mention my
acknowledgement in "All advertising materials mentioning features or use
of this software [...]."

Clearly this requires attribution in more cases than *my* license does
-- i.e. the opposite of what you claim above.

Technically speaking my new clause #4 is also intended to *prohibit* all
present and future users of the NetBSD distribution from mentioning my
name in any *promotional* materials.  (Which is essentially very similar
to the UCB clause #4.)  [[I'm not willing to allow anyone who has money
to spend on advertising and promotion to use my name without my
permission when I'm giving away something (or at least some part of
something) they are promoting.  Whether this is the same as UCB's intent
or not is irrelevant to me.]]

I.e. if my proposed clause #3 is unacceptable then it would only stand
to reason that all similar clauses in the dozens of different copyrights
already in use in the distribution are doubly more unacceptable.  Stop
the presses!!!  Hold the release!!!  Call the Lawyers!!!!  ;-)

My opinion about the apparent contradiction between clauses #3 & #4 in a
UCB-style copyright is not an issue, merely an observation that I find
rather humorous in these current circumstances.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>