"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > By this distinction are you suggesting that all clauses that cause the > licensee to forego rights are unenforceable e.g. limitation of > liability? I would not think too many open source developers would be > happy with that scenario. Aren't they all relying on the effectiveness > of the limitation of liability clause? In any event, the BSD > advertising clause seems to me to be a condition of the unilateral > distribution, modification, etc. license and so no compliance with > that condition suggest to me no authority under that distribution, > modification, etc. license (see > http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5).
No, I'm not making any such broadly sweeping statement. I'm talking about specifically those kinds of advertising clauses, on public licenses (as opposed to contracts), when they act in such a way that might inhibit or otherwise discourage the accurate statement of what the product is. I don't know all the details, but I'm not saying arbitrarily insane generalizations of what I said; I'm only saying what I actually said. > I fail to see the "first amendment" reasons. Violation of the First > Amendment to the U.S. Constitution typically requires state action. To > me this is a contract matter between private parties - I don't see > state action. The enforcement of a contract is a state action. Of course this case isn't a contract. In this case, the state action is would be enforcing the copyright against someone who copied the software but not in accord with the terms of the public licenses. Thomas
