Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and > http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ accordingly? > > Currently both pages sound as if it the 4-clause BSD licence would not > meet the DFSG.
I'd happily update http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ but I can't see how it makes it sounds as if 4-clause BSD wouldn't meet DFSG. Can you clarify? I don't want to encourage it because it has practical problems when combined with the GPLs, but it's OK for main. I can't update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses well and everyone should be very reluctant to use an unattributed wiki as a primary source. I didn't find much there about 4-clause BSD either, really. > > Even the FSF considers it free. > > The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... Not free software. RMS claimed such a question doesn't matter, in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html I feel it's pretty obviously not free software and it's pretty obvious why that's harmful - see: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
