Subject: Re: what happened to the lm75(?) driver?
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Julian Assange <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 09/14/1999 01:53:12
> "advertise", according to online webster, means
> 1: to make something known to: NOTIFY
> 2a: to make publicly and generally known <advertising their readiness
>      to make concessions>
> 2b: to announce publicly esp. by a printed notice or a broadcast
> 2c: to call public attention to esp. by emphasizing desirable qualities
>      so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize
> I stand by my choice of words: it seems to me fairly clear you wish
> your name advertised (2b, possibly 2a too), but do not wish it used to
> advertise (2c) something else.
> 					der Mouse

Mr. Mouse. I love your approval of the public domain. However it must be
remember that you are on a salary, where as consultant-programmers like
woods are not. Programmers need to be fed. The desire for the advertising
clause emerges from two areas:

	1) An unreasoned, but ancient desire not to have your creations
	   appropriated and then falsely claimed to be the work of someone
	   else's brilliance.

	2) Some way of backing up your claims that your work is useful
	   enough to be included in well-known-product-X.

1) is very human, but of little consequence given the size of the
   information economy.

2) for the case of people like Woods is exceptionally important for
   their ability to prove the successful adoption of their creative
   output and consequently land the next contract. This is not
   advertising. How many people read more than the first few acknowledgements
   in the preface of a book, let alone what's on page 398 of the users
   guide in the finest micropoint font? You wouldn't find it unless you
   were looking. But that's just what people like woods want. They want
   to be able to proove their bonafides by saying "go look on page 398".

I completely reject the notion that providing such acknowledgements
is a burden. However finding then legaling every damned home grown
copyright *is*. But it's a burden to a handful of third-party
resellers. DEC's adoption of netbsd for the shark and following
copyright audit, produced a 750k combined copyright file, and must
have involved months of extremely tedious work. However the
contribution of non BSD copyrighted code to NetBSD has thus far
been so valuable that any comparison with the contributions of 3rd
party developers is isn't even worth bothering to attempt. Without
our extensive use of non-BSD code NetBSD simply wouldn't exist in
anything like its current form. The argument that GNU copyrights are
scaring off business developers to any sigificant degree surely must
fold in the presense of the microsoftisation of linux.