question before attempting an update on AFL

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Thorsten Glaser (tg at mirbsd.de):

> I tend to disagree: this is the classical case of BSD advertising clauses,
> with only very slight modifications to the way it???s used/mandated but not
> to the spirit behind it.

I tend to disagree with your disagreement.  This illustrious,
much-storied clause...

* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
*    must display the following acknowledgement:
*    This product includes software developed by the University of
*    California, Berkeley and its contributors.

...does not impair the _use_ of the program.  

Cengiz Gunay aspires, by contrast, to mandate that derivatives of
covered software "cite one of my scientific publications about the
toolbox in publications resulting from the use of [his] toolbox".   He
is not particularly clear about what mandating this "citation" means in
the context of covered software.

But, anyway, my understanding is that the charter of this mailing list
is to evaluate (to assist the OSI Board) licences submitted for possible
OSI certification.  No such licence has been submitted.  This mailing
list isn't about recommending licences, nor about the merits of
third-party ideas for "updating" extant OSI-certified licences such as
Larry Rosen's.  Maybe Gunay actually meant to post his questions to
license-discuss at opensource.org?

-- 
Cheers,                "I'm sorry Dan, what's right isn't always popular, 
Rick Moen              and what's popular isn't always right."
rick at linuxmafia.com                     -- George R. Moscone, Nov. 27, 1978