Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I see it as violating clause 6:
> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a > specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program > from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. I think this is an indefensible stretch. You're basically arguing that violating the license terms is a field of endeavor. I don't think any license other than public domain would survive that argument. > Depending of the wording, the citation clauses forbid the usage of the > programs for works published in articles which do not proprerly cite the > program. So you believe the four-clause BSD license violates the DFSG? It contains the clause: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the University of * California, Berkeley and its contributors. I believe this is not the interpretation being applied by the ftpmasters, who are the final authorities on licenses in Debian. The four-clause BSD license is not a particularly good idea, but I believe it's always been considered DFSG-free. Or am I missing some subtlety of your argument? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]