question before attempting an update on AFL

[Matthew Flaschen]

Bruce Perens wrote:
> 
>> * 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.  
> Russ has been pretty clear that the OSI board is not out to repeat old
> mistakes with only the justification that they were approved before. The
> BSD clause mentioned is in a deprecated version of the license.

According to the current BSD page on opensource.org
(http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php), "The four clause
license has not been approved by OSI."  So using that as precedent (even
if precedent counted here), would not cut it.

In my opinion, though, the mandatory citation is worse than the BSD
clause.  The advertising clause only applied to advertising distributed
for a product containing the BSD code.  In other words, it only bound
distributors, and only when there was already advertising.  The citation
would bind all users unconditionally.

Matt Flaschen