Subject: Re: "University-style" vs "Berkeley" licenses
From: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
Date: 27 Aug 1998 04:48:20 +0000

Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> writes:

> Ray Jones writes:
>  > i am not concerned with the legal arguments regarding enforcability of
>  > BSD-style licenses.  my statements were judgements based on my own
>  > moral views, which are not based on laws.  i think it is morally wrong
>  > to violate an author's wishes regarding the use of their work with
>  > only a profit-motive as justification.
> 
> *I* read Bob's message, although you seem not to have.  One of his
> justifications was that the software would not be distributed because
> of the enforced advertising requirement, and that the user would,
> paradoxically, get less recognition through his (or rather, his
> school's) efforts.
>
> I do not insist that other people's children call me Mr. Nelson, nor
> do I insist that my children call other people Mr. this or Mrs. that.
> Respect is earned, not granted.  Nor is it achieved through advertising.

my mistake.  strike "only" and replace it with "primarily" in what
i've written above, though that's only my interpretation of what i
read, and it could be that the main justification was in fact a case
of trying to increase exposure of the work of the authors.

regardless, i still consider such an act wrong.  it assumes that the
only reason the author stipulated the advertising requirement is to
earn respect or exposure, when in fact the reason could be something
completely different.  (perhaps they just prefer to see their name in
print.)  to assume knowledge of the private wishes of an author and
act against what they've quite clearly stated as their requirements is
still not justified, especially when the option of contacting the
author is probably available.