Subject: Re: what happened to the lm75(?) driver?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 09/14/1999 11:57:43
> I'm only saying that if you find my work of value then in order to
> use it for "free" (i.e. without compensating me directly) you must be
> willing to acknowledge that I wrote it.
On this point I think we are in furious agreement - I know that's what
you're saying, both here and in your license terms. And you -
reasonably enough, by your lights - consider this more important than
allowing your software to be used by the NetBSD community whom it
otherwise could help.
And that's what I feel is a pity, which is where we came in.
> If you are willing to acknowledge my work then there should be no
> problem with my legally binding you to such acknowledgment. If you
> object solely on the basis that I'm forcing you to be legally bound
> to acknowledge my work
Bingo. As I said in another message, roughly, "ask me for something
and I'll (probably) cooperate; try to force me and I'll push back".
> then then I have a problem because it's not really you that I'm
> worried about -- it's the guys one step removed along the way.
Um, I don't quite understand. How is this a problem for *you*?
> Unlike RMS I feel that the people who use proprietary products get
> their just desserts when they find they can't fix their own software.
:-) Another point on which we agree.
> I don't think there's any need for me as a programmer to protect them
> from their own bad judgement so long as I've given them the option of
> choosing an open product. I'm trying to keep my free code free
> without having to prevent those who are willing to use it in
> proprietary products from doing so.
This particular desire can be met equally well by placing your code in
the public domain. (I do realize this is not the only desire driving
your choice of license terms.)
>> [...someone else, not me - Herb Peyerl I think...]
> Of course -- that's why my terms explicitly prohibit the use of my
> name in marketing and promotional material without my direct
Not quite. "The name of the author may NOT be used to endorse or
promote products derived from this software without specific prior
written permission." Mind you, I have trouble imagining how or why
your name could/would be worked into "marketing [or] promotional
material" except to "endorse or promote" (except possibly to satisfy
the other clause, which is specifically exempted), but the precisionist
in me points out that they're definitely not the same thing.
Admittedly, this point is hairsplitting.
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B