Re: [tlug] Vendor lock-in vs monopoly

[Darren Cook <darren@example.com>]

>> The main issue, as many of us are still struggling with, is the
>> advertising clause:
> ...
> As for acknowledgement, the way the license reads, the
> author or contributor could easily move acknowledgments
> to their own file in the documentation.  All it says about
> acknowledgements, is that they should be SOMEWHERE. :-)  The
> program itself never need make a peep about who did what.
> 
> It is expected to be in a comment block in the source code
> somewhere, or in one of the distributed documentation files.

Oi! Just when I thought I got them down, you've gone and made me all
confused about licenses again now :-).
I just re-read them (http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php and
http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html) and the BSD is clearly
saying source code and documentation. The MIT one is just saying the
copyright notice needs to be "in the Software". I wonder if a twisted
lawyer could twist that to mean an executable built from an MIT-licensed
library?

On the other hand, who cares. The worst the lawyer could manage is to
force you to add some extra text to the program's About dialog or splash
screen. I cannot see that paying their legal fees.

Darren