Subject: Re: "University-style" vs "Berkeley" licenses
From: Keith Bostic <>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:33:07 -0400 (EDT)

>>While I would prefer that the language weren't there, this isn't correct.
>>The statement says "mentioning features or use".  You only have to give
>>notice if you specifically mention features that you obtained from
>>elsewhere.  Sure, some folks simply do a laundry list, but only because
>>it's simpler and they don't want to bother actually thinking about it.
> Yes, it is conditional, but it is still a !@#$ nuisance.  Let's say that
> I want to create an advertisement that mentions the inclusion of several
> packages, including 4.4BSD-Lite.  With this restriction, I'm forced to
> put in an explanatory note for each one.  This is a hassle and one that
> I see as quite unnecessary.

I don't mean to attack Rich, but I hear this argument about once a week,
and it's not growing on me.

Let me see if I'm fully comprehending the facts:

    Someone did some work (often, a *lot* of work).

    And asked that they be given recognition for it.  No money, just
    simple recognition.

    And Company XXX found that work sufficiently useful that they're
    going to go and pay an advertising firm money to tell potential
    customers that they have that work, because it will increase the
    money they're going to make.

    And after not paying for the work and about to make a profit by
    selling it, Company XXX now complains because acknowledging the
    poor bastard that did all the work they're selling is a "hassle"
    and "quite unnecessary", not to mention a "nuisance"?

Guess I'm just not tough enough for the corporate boardroom,