RE: [OT] Sapir-Whorfian Advertising Clause (was Advertising clause in license)
-Original Message- From: Dan MacMillan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:04 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Danny MacMillan Cc: Nell Weems; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OT] Sapir-Whorfian Advertising Clause (was Advertising clause in license) From: Ted Mittelstaedt From: Danny MacMillan Be that as it may, the term advertising clause seems strictly definitive, as it pertains to a clause that refers to advertising. That much at least seems obvious from what Nell fgrep'd for. I don't disagree with the substance of your point, but it is counter- productive to redefine language to suit one's political agenda. No it is not. People find it productive to redefine language to suit their political agenda all the time. The original term out of the license was not advertising clause. The original term, right out of the license, was acknowledgement I can only refer you to the license itself, which contains both advertising and acknowledgement: 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: following ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In this context, the required text is labeled as an acknowledgement, not as advertising. This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. The GPL crowd found themselves sounding like a bunch of ungrateful spoiled brats when they originally tried telling people the BSD license was bad because it had a clause that required you to acknowledge the copyright holders So, they did a bit of creative doublespeak and came up with the slur advertising clause Since advertising is associated with commercial activities, this carried an instant negative connotation in the free software community. The GPL bigots didn't even have to explain what an advertising clause was, the mere presense of the word advertising was enough to set people against the acknowledgement clause. Notice how just changing the term back to the real term acknowledgement clause removes the negative connotation and lets the truth of what it really is show through? You are very naieve if you think that words and phrases don't carry negative connotations, or by chance are you in the habit of using terms like nigger, Danny boy? The very name FreeBSD was defined to suit a political agenda. While you may not like living in a world that uses language as a weapon, that's the kind of world most people live in, and you better get used to operating in it. Ted You're bringing a lot of baggage to this discussion. We are both guilty of that. And why may I ask are the additional issues baggage? Most people do like to understand things, you know. It is not really possible to understand complex issues by boiling them down to nothing, after all. Your statement is along the lines of Now children, this is grownup talk that you won't understand, go away and play As long as people focus on what the words are instead of what they mean they will always be easy prey to the next group of bigots that walk through the door. That was my sole point. Yes, this is a valid point. I understand it and I think most educated people on this list understand it. I thought Nell understood it which is why I figured it was worth correcting her or him. That is why I REQUESTED that the initial poster not use a derogatory term. They are of course free to use whatever term they want - but they deserve to know at least that it is derogatory. I did not think the initial poster was asking for a lesson in semantics along with my request - you however chose to argue the request. Let's consider language as a weapon for a moment. You paint your- self as a knee-jerk reactionary by using emotionally charged pejoratives like GPL bigots and Linux bigots. Whoah, there. I use the term GPL bigots because there ARE GPL bigots. I did not say at any point that ALL GPL advocates are bigots. The same is true of use of the term Linux bigots. Not all who are Linux advocates are bigots, and not all who are GPL advocates are bigots. To put it in mathematical terms, the set of GPL bigots is a subset ot GPL advocates. I would not tarnish the set of GPL advocates with the ugly actions of their bigoted subset. Why are you seeming to want me to do so? And as for painting myself, no I'm not doing that. YOU are attempting to label me as a knee-jerk reactionary. I personally don't think you have succeeded in doing so. You further marginalize yourself through the use of dismissive diminutives like Danny boy. Your prior post argued: it is counter-productive to redefine language to suit one's political agenda. But guess what, you are taking offence in my use of the term danny boy through your label of it as a dismissive diminutive. As my intent was to get you to take offence - in order to shake you up out
[OT] Sapir-Whorfian Advertising Clause (was Advertising clause in license)
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 08:50:13PM -0600, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Nell, Just a request, please do not use the term advertising clause This is a term that was created by the Linux bigots, specifically people like RMS who is so bigoted he can't see beyond the tip of his nose. It has never been advertising before to give credit to the authors of a software package until the pro-GPL-anti-BSD crowd came along. It has also never been a burden of any kind to include credit to UCB until people started to think it was because the GPL crowd told them. And many companies used BSD code without giving credit, and nobody cared. (for example, Microsoft who used plenty of BSD code including BSD header files that still had the BSD copyrights in them) Be that as it may, the term advertising clause seems strictly definitive, as it pertains to a clause that refers to advertising. That much at least seems obvious from what Nell fgrep'd for. I don't disagree with the substance of your point, but it is counter- productive to redefine language to suit one's political agenda. I think it is either extremely mean-spirited to make a big deal over this or it is a subtle BSD-bash to do so. Nobody in the BSD community ever coined the term advertising-clause this was forced on us from without, and there is no reason to use it. Ted Mittelstaedt ... -- Danny ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [OT] Sapir-Whorfian Advertising Clause (was Advertising clause in license)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danny MacMillan Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 12:45 AM Be that as it may, the term advertising clause seems strictly definitive, as it pertains to a clause that refers to advertising. That much at least seems obvious from what Nell fgrep'd for. I don't disagree with the substance of your point, but it is counter- productive to redefine language to suit one's political agenda. No it is not. People find it productive to redefine language to suit their political agenda all the time. The original term out of the license was not advertising clause. The original term, right out of the license, was acknowledgement The GPL crowd found themselves sounding like a bunch of ungrateful spoiled brats when they originally tried telling people the BSD license was bad because it had a clause that required you to acknowledge the copyright holders So, they did a bit of creative doublespeak and came up with the slur advertising clause Since advertising is associated with commercial activities, this carried an instant negative connotation in the free software community. The GPL bigots didn't even have to explain what an advertising clause was, the mere presense of the word advertising was enough to set people against the acknowledgement clause. Notice how just changing the term back to the real term acknowledgement clause removes the negative connotation and lets the truth of what it really is show through? You are very naieve if you think that words and phrases don't carry negative connotations, or by chance are you in the habit of using terms like nigger, Danny boy? The very name FreeBSD was defined to suit a political agenda. While you may not like living in a world that uses language as a weapon, that's the kind of world most people live in, and you better get used to operating in it. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
advertising clause in license
Hello all, after typing: fgrep -r All advertising materials /usr/src/sys it seems like there are still many files which contain the advertising clause. has there been any attempts to contact the copyright authors of these files and see if it can be removed? not too much of a deal, i was just wondering. Nell __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: advertising clause in license
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:35:51PM -0700, Nell Weems wrote: Hello all, after typing: fgrep -r All advertising materials /usr/src/sys it seems like there are still many files which contain the advertising clause. has there been any attempts to contact the copyright authors of these files and see if it can be removed? not too much of a deal, i was just wondering. No concerted efforts that I know of, but note that most of those copyright holders are the UCB regents, so the copyright notice is overridden by the amendment in /COPYRIGHT. There is some ongoing work to regularize licenses in the source tree though (mostly worked on by imp@). Kris pgpDNkoVeu3dk.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: advertising clause in license
Nell, Just a request, please do not use the term advertising clause This is a term that was created by the Linux bigots, specifically people like RMS who is so bigoted he can't see beyond the tip of his nose. It has never been advertising before to give credit to the authors of a software package until the pro-GPL-anti-BSD crowd came along. It has also never been a burden of any kind to include credit to UCB until people started to think it was because the GPL crowd told them. And many companies used BSD code without giving credit, and nobody cared. (for example, Microsoft who used plenty of BSD code including BSD header files that still had the BSD copyrights in them) I think it is either extremely mean-spirited to make a big deal over this or it is a subtle BSD-bash to do so. Nobody in the BSD community ever coined the term advertising-clause this was forced on us from without, and there is no reason to use it. Ted Mittelstaedt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nell Weems Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 1:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: advertising clause in license Hello all, after typing: fgrep -r All advertising materials /usr/src/sys it seems like there are still many files which contain the advertising clause. has there been any attempts to contact the copyright authors of these files and see if it can be removed? not too much of a deal, i was just wondering. Nell __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
