Neither you nor I have the legal experience to really determine if there is no need. What constitutes an "advertisement"? If I am a security consultant and I develop a no-cost open source tool using OpenSSL, and I do it deliberately as a way to get my name out into the field and find clients, then is that advertising?
What constitutes "mentioning features of this software"? If I use another package for SSL and advertise that my software has SSL support, but have OpenSSL in my code for other reasons (let's say, the SHA-1 digest code), then do I need to mention OpenSSL? After all, SSL is a supposed feature of OpenSSL.
No, it's not as bad as I make it out to be, but that's in large part because we are generally lazy when it comes to the particulars of licenses. Just look at the number of GPLv2 software distributions which don't follow the letter of the license. (Section 3 assumes physical distribution, not network. GPLv3 clarified this problem.)
It's also because license holders are lazy. Enforcing the GPL takes a lot of time and effort. Many violations occur because few actively enforce the license.
If your expectations are based on what people do in a lazy world, then you are perhaps a realist (or a cynic), but it still violates the license.
The "pages and pages of advertisement clauses" affects only to those who actually follow the license. These might be nitpickers like me, or organizations with lots of money and who are easy pickings and worried about liability.
These also happen to be the people who are likely to give acknowledgements, especially when the license so requires it (as the GPL does).
What constitutes "mentioning features of this software"? If I use another package for SSL and advertise that my software has SSL support, but have OpenSSL in my code for other reasons (let's say, the SHA-1 digest code), then do I need to mention OpenSSL? After all, SSL is a supposed feature of OpenSSL.
No, it's not as bad as I make it out to be, but that's in large part because we are generally lazy when it comes to the particulars of licenses. Just look at the number of GPLv2 software distributions which don't follow the letter of the license. (Section 3 assumes physical distribution, not network. GPLv3 clarified this problem.)
It's also because license holders are lazy. Enforcing the GPL takes a lot of time and effort. Many violations occur because few actively enforce the license.
If your expectations are based on what people do in a lazy world, then you are perhaps a realist (or a cynic), but it still violates the license.
The "pages and pages of advertisement clauses" affects only to those who actually follow the license. These might be nitpickers like me, or organizations with lots of money and who are easy pickings and worried about liability.
These also happen to be the people who are likely to give acknowledgements, especially when the license so requires it (as the GPL does).