Re: xfree86 license

[Darren Reed <avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au>]

In some mail from Ted Unangst, sie said:
> 
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Darren Reed wrote:
> 
> xfree86 1.1:
> >     3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
> >        any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product
> >        includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc
> >        (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place
> >         and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this
> >        acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form
> >        and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
> 
> tnf:
>  * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
>  *    must display the following acknowledgement:
>  *      This product includes software developed by the NetBSD
>  *      Foundation, Inc. and its contributors.
> 
> not the same.

Indeed it is not.  And if I were OpenBSD, I would favour xfree86 1.1
over that from TNF.  Think for a second about what the implementation
of each is likely to require.  Read what each of them says and requires
and take time to actually understand the difference.

For example, for proper compliance, any mention of OpenBSD supporting
AMD64 in product announcements should legally then go on to mention
that the AMD64 support code came from NetBSD
(e.g src/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/bus_dma.c)

XFree86 1.1 does not require that, just attribution in the documentation.
 
What would you prefer ?

Darren