Fortunately, an obnoxious advertising requirement would be incompatible with the GPL3 license.
But you can always REQUEST people to acknowledge the project with the logo.
Once again I've poorly conveyed the true meaning of my post. Sorry about that, I'll try again:
Publicity for the Uzebox is always good, because publicity leads to more people finding out about the Uzebox which leads to more people joining the community.
Before the Post - Signature (or whatever P.S. means) I talked about publicity because I know that if someone found the
bootloader, and adapted it to something like the Arduino, odds are they would link back to the Uzebox site just so other people can download it.
After the Post -Signature I was talking about requiring the uzebox logo because I still feel that the maker of the XGS AVR stole Uze's idea.
While I've never gone and had a conversation with the guy who made the XGS AVR, Im still pretty peeved at him for saying its "
much more complete than the Uzebox", when it looks like half the system is a direct copy of the Uzebox (overclocked MCU, using a NTSC color chip thing, emphasis on a kernel that runs in the background so people who code in C don't need to worry about it.)
If you read the Post-Signature independent of the body of my post, it does not mention publicity at all, and if you read the body of my post with out reading the post signature it does not mention forcing people to advertise the uzebox.
I was worried about having the code stolen because I looked at some links about FAT 16 access that someone (Pragma?) posted and it was near impossible for me to understand. Pragma and Uze invested a serious amount of time and it would suck if someone stole their code.
But I did a quick google and found the GPL covers that:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IWantCredit
>J